Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9057 total)
93 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), ramoss (3 members, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,974 Year: 1,086/6,534 Month: 1,086/682 Week: 139/182 Day: 0/18 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution is antithetical to racism
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 88 of 238 (423736)
09-24-2007 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
09-18-2007 8:39 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
RAZD:
and Stalin outlawed evolution - see Lysenkoism. These are things you learn in high school.

Your link says:

A persecution of genetics and geneticists began in the early 1930’s. It was fueled by the rhetoric of Trofim Lysenko (1898-1976), an agronomist with little education and no scientific training, but with grand ambitions for Soviet agriculture based on his mistaken belief in a Lamarckian mechanism of inheritance and organic change.

So they outlawed/persecuted/etc. the new science which contradicted Lamarckism. They decided to stick with the older form of evolution 'theory'.

What's actually happening in the article is that evolutionism is so pervasive that genetics was outlawed because it was incompatible with the old Darwinism.

In the west, a way was later found to incorporate genetics into Darwinism.

And their stance on religion should be even more well-known, I would hope. Essentially, the U.S.S.R. outlawed anything which opposed their version of evolutionism. As do most communist governments.

I hope this was an honest mistake. It may well be so. The article itself, and others erroneously equate this with being 'anti-evolution'. 'Anti-neo-Darwinist' would be accurate. Except that neo-Darwinism hadn't yet been formulated, and genetics was (and is! but that's O.T.) anti-evolutionism at the time.

The part of the story that's received a little less attention than it deserves is the "survival of the fittest" part. As long as this is part of evolutionism, there will be plenty of compatibility with racism. This is the critical element - not the relative relatedness or any "tree" diagrams. (The old Greek tree mentioned earlier was based on evolutionism, by the way. It didn't start with Darwin.)

In order for things to evolve, must there not be competition? Must not this competition weed out the weak before they reproduce? If not, will these weaklings not produce races of inferior offspring?

But that's as far as I go. The history of the Nazis, Communists, and others is available. If one accepts Darwinism and rejects God, I don't see a handy way to dispute the philosophies of Marx or Hitler/Nietzsche. One strove for the collective (think ant) evolution of nations, while the other is based on the evolution of the individuals that make up a nation.

So far, all that's been offered against this & eugenics is that "fittest" is defined differently by the present-day evolutionist 'scientists' than it is/was by politicians. But "fittest" is always subjective.

Anyhow, I think this thread is intended to trick creationists into making pro-racist arguments. The facts are too well known and readily available to merit much serious discussion. The issue is as good as settled, and it's very easy to see that it's bound to fail as a feel-good thread for evolutionists.

I should also call "straw man" (and off-topic) on those who have maintained that creationism is inherently racist. Historically there have been such creatures, and I expect there still are; but nothing in the simple fact of creation indicates that one should be racist. Neither does any rational line of reasoning derived from this fact lead thereunto.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2007 8:39 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 6:56 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 8:02 AM CTD has responded
 Message 92 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 8:09 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 93 of 238 (423767)
09-24-2007 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
09-24-2007 8:02 AM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
RAZD:
That is not just genetics. Or by "older form of evolution 'theory'" do you mean the theories that were around before Darwin (like Lamarkism)?

That would also be totally irrelevant to the issue of deriving racism from the theory of evolution.

Am I to understand that 'evolution' here is restricted to mean your particular brand of 'evolution' which didn't even exist at the time?

Well it matters not one bit, so long as "survival of the fittest" is the key ingredient.

Except that stating it does not make it so. Survival of the fittest deals with individuals, not populations.

You need to show how this necessarily results in racism. All you have done is show how racists can (mis)use it. People with an agenda can always misuse information. Can you demonstrate that you know how to use it properly?

Saying it isn't so won't change it either. Humans aren't generally subject to 'natural selection' the way creatures in the wilderness are. They're highly shielded, as a matter of fact. Economic selection, maybe. Tons of evolutionists have already acknowledged this. It's self-evident to anyone who gives it a moment's thought.

Oh, don't forget famine. Famine hits populations - not indiduals. Oh, and wars play a role as well. Or do the "fittest" always manage to survive somehow? Now that I think about it, the primary determining factor in average lifespan would probably be location. But I'm not going to beat a dead horse. Folks either see this by now or pretend not to.

Badly stated, but no they wouldn't produce races, just as your offspring are not a new race. Because those individuals would be selected against their offspring (if any) would never get to the level of producing a race.

How so? Among humans, where's the struggle to survive? And where does it ever exist on an individual basis? Even poor people have family and friends who'll help out in a pinch, rather than obey the call of evolution and let the weaklings die. (This is true among all social animals to one degree or another, and acknowledged by evolutionists.)

Nope. There is nothing subjective about death and sex.

Oh? And who was it came up with the term 'sexual selection'? Do you know the name of that famous creationist by chance? Or is it maybe a touch subjective? (Careful! One of those was a trick question.)

So far you have totally failed to demonstrate that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution.

Marx and Nietzsche have already done so (very thoroughly if you count their followers). I don't intend to repeat their work. I find it highly offensive in many ways, as should all civilized people. Now one can always be an atheist evolutionist and be irrational about applying it to one's own life, thereby escaping the need to be racist and heartless. Most followers of other religions aren't always so strict about applying every last thing to their own lives, and this needn't be an exception.

Am I wrong, or is not the oldest, wealthiest, most talented and popular human being in the world a failure if they die childless (according to evolutionism)? Somewhat O.T. but I want to check & see if we're talking about the same thing, y'know?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 8:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 9:45 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 11:11 AM CTD has responded
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2007 2:57 PM CTD has responded
 Message 101 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 3:47 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-24-2007 4:24 PM CTD has responded
 Message 123 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2007 12:53 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 95 of 238 (423773)
09-24-2007 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by RAZD
09-24-2007 8:02 AM


Thanks!
RAZD (with emphasis added)
Nope. They decided to stick with what they wanted to happen based on their fundamentalist politics rather than fact. Similar to the way creationists keep trying to change evolution into something it isn't.

Thanks for the new term. We now have fundy evolutionists! I aim to use this pup.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 8:02 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 9:57 AM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 10:06 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 104 of 238 (423886)
09-24-2007 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by jar
09-24-2007 3:57 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
jar
It will be interesting. Karl Marx published the Communist Manifesto in 1848 while Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859.

Maybe this is a clue as to why the fundamentalist evolutionists preferred Larmackian evolution... maybe?

Or maybe not. The line between Lamarck and Darwin really wasn't clear, if it existed at all. In those days I think the two were generally regarded as complimentary.

Can we just say that dogmatic devotion to an evolutionary paradigm motivated the Soviet-style Communists to suppress science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 3:57 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 7:18 PM CTD has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 106 of 238 (423913)
09-24-2007 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
09-24-2007 11:11 AM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution - fact
RAZD
Except that survival of the fittest doesn't produce "inferior" individuals or races.

Huh? There aren't a lot of choices. If it produces equal offspring, there's no point in selection. Clearly there must be superior offspring, and they have to be 'superior' to something. I submit that there cannot exist 'superior' anything without an 'inferior' counterpart.

And what are 'races' to be made up of, if not individuals?

Are you equating being poor with being inferior? Are you equating having some poor people in a population with the whole population being inferior?

Darwinists do so right now. It's a favorite pro-abortion argument of theirs: the unwanted babies would result in unbearable economic hardship for the parents and for society at large.

A good number of their pro-abortion arguments work equally as well when applied as pro-racist arguments. The "quality of life" argument, the "it's legal so it's just fine" argument. Even the quacky "how do you define human?" line is readily converted to racism.

I did a search here & came up with this local discussion. Makes for ugly reading, but a fair sampling of the arguments can be found here. Of course not every last one will handily transform, but there are a handful.
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=15&t=135&m=1

And it's been pointed out before that in practice legalized abortion results in some 'races' aborting in much higher percentages than others among 'multi-racial' populations.

I personally am unable to define the term 'race'. For anyone who can, there are ample motives to practice racism under atheist evolution. It is precisely because evolution requires selective pressure, and humans do not undergo any consistent, discernable selective pressure that they need to implement other forms of pressure.

Under evolution, it is a proper course of action to see to it that one's offspring survive to produce more offspring. As Modulous pointed out this applies to the offspring of siblings as well, since they'll have much in common, genetically.

It logically extends to give preference to all other creatures on the basis of how 'closely related' one is to them. So anyone who sees another 'race' as more distantly related than one's own has a motive to prefer the survival of some over others because one shares more genetically with them. The manifestation of this preference is properly called 'racism', is it not?

I expect some will say evolution doesn't require pressure. Look at the experiments. They always introduce pressure, lest they should have no change to observe.

I see now that there are two motives. 1.) Introduce pressure, that the species may evolve. 2.)Give preference to those individuals and groups to whom one is more closely related. These are separate, yet highly compatible motives for an atheist evolutionist to practice racism. In light of this, my post could have been better organized.

BTW, is there a topic yet which discusses the problems for evolutionism which exist because social species are often well-shielded from selection on an individual basis? I'd be interested to see what manner of stories have been invented to cope with this. Some of them might very well apply to humans, and probably would be highly compatible with eugenics and racism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 11:11 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 8:27 PM CTD has responded
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 9:48 PM CTD has responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 107 of 238 (423923)
09-24-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Modulous
09-24-2007 2:57 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
Modulous
Right now, many humans die of old age and so do not suffer as strongly from survival selection. Many many many people still die from disease and famine, so selection still exists. Your life expectancy in classical Rome could have been as bad 28 years. A lot of that is due to infant mortality. We westerners are lucky, but there is definitely natural selection occurring to humans in other parts of the world. Such as Africa.

quotes me

quote:
Oh, don't forget famine. Famine hits populations - not indiduals.

Correct. And the fittest individuals in that population will survive.

First of all thank you for being honest enough to agree, although you make it clear that we disagree on the extent of shielding.

It appears that 'fitness' in a starving or diseased country must depend mostly on friendship with a local warlord, or living in a place where relief workers can readily find a person.

Indeed, it can even depend on how much CNN coverage your country's plight receives, and how much charity the coverage generates. But it takes a pretty harsh disease to kill a rich man's child.

To me, that's just not very Darwinian.

There's been a lot of stuff on the History Channel lately about volcanos. They don't seem to be so all-fired Darwinian in how they go about selecting the 'fittest' either.

I won't go on and on. There's precious little 'natural selection' among humans, if any at all.

If anything, the Darwinism for humans would have to be applied on a national level. The nations which are 'more fit' organizationally fare batter than those with lesser organization. This is what made the collectivism evolutionist paradigm (ant emulation) look good to some. Of course their choice of organizational methods proves rather poor...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 09-24-2007 2:57 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Vacate, posted 09-24-2007 9:48 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 120 by Modulous, posted 09-25-2007 2:17 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 109 of 238 (423926)
09-24-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by jar
09-24-2007 7:18 PM


Re: and Stalin outlawed evolution -NOT
jar
Nor have you shown how Marxism supports racism. One of the tenets of Marx work was the equality of the individual. There was no differentiation based on race, but only on productivity.

And one 'race' could never be deemed "less productive" than another? Once 'races' are defined, it seems that one will inevitably be considered 'more fit' than another.

When reading liars like Marx, one must expect some flowery language to be included. Such persons will frequently say one thing that conflicts with another, leaving their followers to implement the real plan where the rubber meets the road.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 7:18 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 8:39 PM CTD has responded
 Message 117 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 11:31 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 110 of 238 (423928)
09-24-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Chiroptera
09-24-2007 8:27 PM


offspring
Well, under anything, actually. I don't know a single society that didn't feel that a proper course of action is to see to it that one's offspring survives to produce more offspring. In fact, in most societies, if one didn't see to it that one's offspring survives, one would be considered a bad parent.

'Bad parent'? Did you mean to be so harsh on those who abort their children?

Edited by CTD, : Fix quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 09-24-2007 8:27 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 112 of 238 (423941)
09-24-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Lithodid-Man
09-24-2007 4:24 PM


objective selection
Lithodid-Man
To repeat what has been said over and over in this thread, please demonstrate how the ToE is inherently racist or leads to racism as a logical conclusion, naming racists who may or may have not been evolutionists is not evidence.

Please take care about moving goalposts.

Actually, in the OP jar says

Several posters over the years have implied that Evolution and Racism are related or that racism is supported by evolution.

The fact is that the Theory of Evolution is antithetical to the concept of racism.

And jar's post #21 of this thread

And I never said it did.

I said that Evolution and the Theory of Evolution cannot be used to justify racism.

And so far no one has even come close to showing how evolution could be used to justify racism.

It is maintained that evolutionism is antithetical to racism because it teaches us how closely we are related to our fellow men. Biology has indeed revealed much along those lines. But evolutionism continually strives to remind us that there should be a struggle for survival, and that some of us must be "more fit" than others.

Can evolutionism be used to support racism? It clearly has been used for that purpose, and it continues to this very day.

So one might ask if the racists are somehow misapplying evolutionism or being hypocritical. If they are, I can't see it. On what basis can one fault their reasoning? Evolutionism provides no basis whatsoever upon which to criticize them. Only via morals and ethics can they be faulted, and evolutionism is fairly scant on ammo.

One would have to demonstrate that their actions somehow inhibit 'evolution'. So long as the 'theory' clearly states that stress and competition are appropriate and that one should strive do demonstrate and exploit the advantages of one's own group, this is a tall order indeed. So long as it implies that "inferior" specimens don't deserve to survive, it will have no chance whatsoever.

Also, it is artificial and nonsensical to claim that 'evolution' can be applied in a manner which restricts consideration to individuals and does not extend to groups. Groups are made up of individuals, and most evolutionary 'science' deals with groups. Generally, individuals aren't said to 'evolve' much at all. (And as I've already explained, human survival is much more of a group issue anyway.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Lithodid-Man, posted 09-24-2007 4:24 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2007 1:15 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Chiroptera, posted 09-25-2007 1:37 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 126 by jar, posted 09-25-2007 2:28 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 115 of 238 (423944)
09-24-2007 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by jar
09-24-2007 8:39 PM


jar
Yet you have not shown Marx was a liar.

I kinda assumed most folks can figure that out. Maybe some other time...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 09-24-2007 8:39 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-24-2007 10:54 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 119 of 238 (423965)
09-25-2007 12:07 AM


Looks like Game Over
Spam away with denials. Misstate whatever you will.

The information is out & the facts have been set free. Your cause is lost. Nobody will be fooled who wasn't fooled before, and it's possible you could even lose a few souls.


Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2007 7:10 AM CTD has responded
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2007 12:37 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 127 of 238 (424106)
09-25-2007 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
09-25-2007 7:10 AM


Re: Looks like Game Over
Again, where exactly did you show that racism is a necessary result of the theory of evolution?

Where exactly in the OP is this mentioned?

Not that I couldn't do it. It may be that I already have. I'm a little drowsy. But the point is: why should I?

I've already demonstrated how false the claim was - all that happens now is you guys generate more spam of frustration.

The history is clear. Racists have seen that natural selection doesn't apply to individual humans. If it has any effect, it is certainly too small to result in any improvement. They have devised and implemented other means to "evolve the species". Or should everyone forget there ever was an attempt to evolve a "master race" of the "Ãœbermann", just so you all can "win"?*

*RAZD, I clearly see that you intend to move the goalposts in order to obtain your "victory". So that question would not apply to you as an individual at this time. Others seem to be reaching that point, as disgusting as it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2007 7:10 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-25-2007 4:52 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 09-25-2007 6:59 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 131 by Chiroptera, posted 09-25-2007 9:21 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 129 of 238 (424114)
09-25-2007 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
09-24-2007 9:48 PM


Re: playing the abortion card ... ?
RAZD
This makes them inferior? You are now off on a rant about abortion, and have completely missed making the connection between poor and inferior. That there are lots of topics that discuss abortion still has no bearing on the equation of poor with inferior.

I repeat: are you equating being poor with being inferior? Are you equating having some poor people in a population with the whole population being inferior?

And I'll add: are you equating having an abortion with being inferior? Are you equating having some people in a population having an abortion with the whole population being inferior?

Playing the card? What are you talking about? Abortion is supposed to have popular support, so by bringing it up I'd be risking turning most of the "audience" against me. In order to "play cards", one has to play politically correct cards in case you never noticed.

And I ranted about nothing. I pointed out that several of the evolutionist arguments currently used to support abortion work equally well to support racism. What further did I say about abortion that would qualify my remarks as a rant?

And since you don't seem to understand, it is the Darwinists, the racists, and the supporters of abortion who equate poverty with inferiority. Pointing out that piece of information does not make me one of them, and never will. Neither will you ever convince anyone that it does beyond a couple of our little spammers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2007 9:48 PM RAZD has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-26-2007 4:49 AM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 133 of 238 (424338)
09-26-2007 3:49 PM


from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,773029-1,00.html
Cooperation has been a more important evolutionary jorce in the development of man than has the bitter competitive struggle for existence. So asserted a learned U.S. biologist last week in an attack on those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression.

Just what is meant by "those who use the doctrine of evolution to justify totalitarian brutality and aggression"? Of whom could they be thinking?

One clue might be found in the date of the article.

Unfortunately, switching paradigms from competition among individuals to competition among groups really doesn't help much in combating racism, because 'races' have always been considered groups.

But I'm skipping too far ahead. I fear we may still have some who are in denial.


Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by RAZD, posted 09-26-2007 5:03 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2007 6:11 PM CTD has not yet responded

  
CTD
Member (Idle past 4989 days)
Posts: 253
Joined: 03-11-2007


Message 136 of 238 (424386)
09-26-2007 7:25 PM


http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/thx2010.txt

I have other reasons for fearing that this logical ideal of
evolutionary regimentation
--this pigeon-fanciers' polity--is
unattainable.

Thomas H. Huxley, at the start of "IX" (emphasis added)

What's he talking about? It's best to start at "V" and read straight through. From the ending paragraphs of "VII":

Thus, as soon as the colonists began to multiply, the administrator
would have to face the tendency to the reintroduction of the cosmic
struggle into his artificial fabric, in consequence of the
competition, not merely for the commodities, but for the means of
existence. When the colony reached the limit of possible expansion,
the surplus population must be disposed of somehow; or the fierce
struggle for existence must recommence and destroy that peace, which
is the fundamental condition of the maintenance of the state of art
against the state of nature.

Supposing the administrator to be guided by purely scientific
considerations, he would, like the gardener, meet this most serious
difficulty by systematic extirpation, or exclusion, of the superfluous.
The hopelessly diseased, the infirm aged, the weak or deformed in body
or in mind, the excess of infants born, would be put away, as the
gardener pulls up defective and superfluous plants, or the breeder
destroys undesirable cattle. Only the strong and the healthy,
carefully matched, with a view to the progeny best adapted to the
purposes of the administrator, would be permitted to perpetuate their
kind.

He's talking about the operation of a colony of people, administered by an "ideal" agent. He argues that the reason it shouldn't be done is that the ideal "administrative authority" cannot be found.

In "VIII" he acknowledges that attempts are being made in his time to do this thing. He speaks well of their ruthlessness, but has reservations about their intelligence.

If you can make it through all the babble down to "XII" (again I'll add emphasis)

I have briefly described the nature of the only radical cure, known to
me, for the disease which would thus threaten the existence of the
colony; and, however regretfully, I have been obliged to admit that
this rigorously scientific method of applying the principles of
evolution to human society
hardly comes within the region of practical
politics; not for want of will on the part of a great many people; but
because, for one reason, there is no hope that mere human beings will
ever possess enough intelligence to select the fittest. And I [35]
have adduced other grounds for arriving at the same conclusion.

This is the man who was known as "Darwin's Bulldog", the mouthpiece who dared to say the things Darwin lacked the guts to say. He clearly states what the logical result of applying evolutionism would be. And the "one reason" he gives for not implementing the ideal is "nobody's smart enough".

I agree that it shouldn't be done or attempted. But the "nobody's smart enough" argument will never convince even one single person who would otherwise attempt this that they're not up to it.

So what's the next gripe? "He wasn't talking about neo-Darwinism, so that's not evolution", is that it? No. It'll probably be some lame lie that I didn't read it all, or misquoted. I read enough to see that he offered no alternatives, compatible with evolution or otherwise. Neither did he offer a better argument. I can also tell he's had practice saying nothing with a lot of words. So go for it, losers.


Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 09-26-2007 7:33 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 138 by Chiroptera, posted 09-26-2007 7:33 PM CTD has not yet responded
 Message 142 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-30-2007 11:04 AM CTD has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022