Very Interesting Scientific Piece about the Direct Line from Darwinism to Eugenics

Seymour Flops

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2021
13,937
11,164
2,138
Texas

Not only was Sir Francis Galton a famous geographer and statistician, he also invented "eugenics" in 1883. Eugenics, defined as the science of improving racial stock, was developed from a new heredity theory, conceived by Galton himself, and from the evolution theory of Charles Darwin, transposed to human society by Herbert Spencer. Galton's eugenics was a program to artificially produce a better human race through regulating marriage and thus procreation. Galton put particular emphasis on "positive eugenics", aimed at encouraging the physically and mentally superior members of the population to choose partners with similar traits. In 1904, he presented his ideas in front of a vast audience of physicians and scientists in London. His widely-publicized lecture served as the starting point for the development of eugenics groups in Europe and the United States during the first half of the 20th century.


Eugenics is the natural next step after one comes to "believe" in Darwinian evolution. If the fittest survive, those who survive must have been the fittest. Amongst animals and plants, the selection is entirely natural. But - so must think the Darwinist - most of humanities scientific advancement have consisted of adopting natural processes to human needs.

Darwinism is completely incompatible with the idea that each human being has equal worth. The belief that one human being is as worthy as another must be driven by either faith, or humanism. It should be no surprise that shortly after Darwin's theory gained wide publicity, those who sought to engineer what they saw as improvements in humanity used them to propagate their ideas.

Of course, none of that means that Darwinism should not be taught. It must be, as it has wide support among those who are curious about the origins of life on Earth. But, it should never be taught as a dogma, only as one theory of how the diversity of species was arrived at.

The misuse of the theory and its consequences should be included. Why not? Origin of species is history, not science.
 
Galton was Darwin's cousin, I think.

Also see Charles Davenport for his contribution to 'rationalizing' eugenics; his influence on the Nazi program was huge.
 

Not only was Sir Francis Galton a famous geographer and statistician, he also invented "eugenics" in 1883. Eugenics, defined as the science of improving racial stock, was developed from a new heredity theory, conceived by Galton himself, and from the evolution theory of Charles Darwin, transposed to human society by Herbert Spencer. Galton's eugenics was a program to artificially produce a better human race through regulating marriage and thus procreation. Galton put particular emphasis on "positive eugenics", aimed at encouraging the physically and mentally superior members of the population to choose partners with similar traits. In 1904, he presented his ideas in front of a vast audience of physicians and scientists in London. His widely-publicized lecture served as the starting point for the development of eugenics groups in Europe and the United States during the first half of the 20th century.

Eugenics is the natural next step after one comes to "believe" in Darwinian evolution. If the fittest survive, those who survive must have been the fittest. Amongst animals and plants, the selection is entirely natural. But - so must think the Darwinist - most of humanities scientific advancement have consisted of adopting natural processes to human needs.

Darwinism is completely incompatible with the idea that each human being has equal worth. The belief that one human being is as worthy as another must be driven by either faith, or humanism. It should be no surprise that shortly after Darwin's theory gained wide publicity, those who sought to engineer what they saw as improvements in humanity used them to propagate their ideas.

Of course, none of that means that Darwinism should not be taught. It must be, as it has wide support among those who are curious about the origins of life on Earth. But, it should never be taught as a dogma, only as one theory of how the diversity of species was arrived at.

The misuse of the theory and its consequences should be included. Why not? Origin of species is history, not science.
The answer to neo-Nazi theories such as yours, is Dawkins', The Selfish Gene.
And the Catholic church has settled the question on Darwinian evolution being more than a theory, by accepting evolution and permitting the church's flock to believe it.
 
Last edited:
The answer to neo-Nazi theories such as yours, is Dawkins', The Selfish Gene.
I've read it, but I don't remember the answer to the fact that Nazis used Darwinism to justify Eugenics.

What was it?
And the Catholic church has settled the question on Darwinian evolution being more than a theory, by accepting evolution and permitting the church's flock to believe it.
The Catholic Church si the arbitor of scientific knowledge? The Roman or the Eastern Orthodox? What about Greek Orthodox?
 
The answer to neo-Nazi theories such as yours, is Dawkins', The Selfish Gene.
And the Catholic church has settled the question on Darwinian evolution being more than a theory, by accepting evolution and permitting the church's flock to believe it.
absolutely false, Catholicism has no De Fide position on evolution any more than it does on Relativity.
Besides you have no scientific background if you think Evolution is some one set thing !!!!!
 
absolutely false, Catholicism has no De Fide position on evolution any more than it does on Relativity.
Besides you have no scientific background if you think Evolution is some one set thing !!!!!

The point is Libby, the Catholic church can still reverse it's permission to it's flock to believe in Darwin's evolution.
Until it does it's going to lose the truly faithful.
 
The answer to neo-Nazi theories such as yours, is Dawkins', The Selfish Gene.

Dawkins is an idiot. Way over the top.

And the Catholic church has settled the question on Darwinian evolution being more than a theory, by accepting evolution and permitting the church's flock to believe it.

Since when do I need the Pope's permission to engage in science?
 
Dawkins is an idiot. Way over the top.



Since when do I need the Pope's permission to engage in science?
If you're a Catholic, since when the church decided to accept Darwinian evolution. If I was a Christian, I wouldn't be able to live the lie that makes both evolution and creation the truth at the same time. I would have to leave the Catholic church.

This is why all discussions finally end up with the rubber meeting the road.
 
Donald H

Logically, you are suggesting a linkage between the act of creation and what happened afterwards.

However, that linkage is an ASSUMPTION, not provable either way by science, at this time.

I claim the two ideas (creation and evolution) are 100% compatible. I have not yet found any evidence that says otherwise.
 
Donald H

Logically, you are suggesting a linkage between the act of creation and what happened afterwards.

However, that linkage is an ASSUMPTION, not provable either way by science, at this time.

I claim the two ideas (creation and evolution) are 100% compatible. I have not yet found any evidence that says otherwise.
The Catholic church's amended view on accepting Darwinian evolution was intended to cause you to believe just that!

You can accept Adam and Eve at the same time and together with accepting evolution of man from more primitive forms of life. Or, the ancestors of both Chimps and humans.

The evidence? Maybe some time in the future the Christians will have the courage to talk about it. The Catholic church has proclaimed that their faithful are permitted to believe what they choose, without being threatened with hell.
 
The Catholic church's amended view on accepting Darwinian evolution was intended to cause you to believe just that!

You can accept Adam and Eve at the same time and together with accepting evolution of man from more primitive forms of life. Or, the ancestors of both Chimps and humans.

The evidence? Maybe some time in the future the Christians will have the courage to talk about it. The Catholic church has proclaimed that their faithful are permitted to believe what they choose, without being threatened with hell.
Well, I'm usually 50-300 years ahead of the Catholics lol :p

That's why they pay me the big bucks. :)
 

The point is Libby, the Catholic church can still reverse it's permission to it's flock to believe in Darwin's evolution.
Until it does it's going to lose the truly faithful.
NO, as soon as you do that, you get the crowd that says "What isn't condemned is accepted"
Evoluiont or any scientific theory can have no DE FIDE statement.

Anyway , consider what has never been in question and tell me how a Catholic can find any support in Evolution for

THE DIRECT CREATION OF THE FIRST WOMAN BY GOD
---and I am fully Catholic though admitting I think most Evoution explanations are crap
 
Pope Francis claims we as Christians are commanded by GOD to protect and care for the very weakest of our societies ... and we find this principle rampant in the natural world ... go ahead ... kick a baby bear cub in the wild ... you'll find out right quick what Darwin calls "survival of the fittest" ...

I say science completely backs that up ... societies with caste (or gender) abound in the natural world, especially in the more highly evolved ant or bee colonies ... the weak are protected by the strong ... and in return, only the strong breed, thus our many wars cleansing the gene pool that way ... and using the harem style reproduction ...

King Solomon was strong, and he had 700 wives ... how chimps and gorillas breed ... the DNA is almost identical ...
 
NO, as soon as you do that, you get the crowd that says "What isn't condemned is accepted"
Evoluiont or any scientific theory can have no DE FIDE statement.

Anyway , consider what has never been in question and tell me how a Catholic can find any support in Evolution for

THE DIRECT CREATION OF THE FIRST WOMAN BY GOD
---and I am fully Catholic though admitting I think most Evoution explanations are crap
You mean the 'borrowed rib' thing?
 
You mean the 'borrowed rib' thing?
No, not at all.

Pope John Paul 1979 showed that your interpretation smacks of a dishonest fundamentalism. To convey whatever God did does not require a newsreel movie, what God does is not step-by-step like that !!! He is the Creator, Earlier on it said "Let there be light"and the stars appeared. I know you want a step-by-step but WHY ????

"The woman is made "with the rib" that God-Yahweh had taken from the man. Considering the archaic, metaphorical and figurative way of expressing the thought, we can establish that it is a question here of homogeneity of the whole being of both. This homogeneity concerns above all the body, the somatic structure. It is also confirmed by the man's first words to the woman who has been created: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gn 2:23). Yet the words quoted refer also to the humanity of the male. They must be read in the context of the affirmations made before the creation of the woman, in which, although the "incarnation" of the man does not yet exist, she is defined as "a helper fit for him" (cf. Gn 2:18 and 2:20). In this way, therefore, the woman is created, in a sense, on the basis of the same humanity."
 
No, not at all.

Pope John Paul 1979 showed that your interpretation smacks of a dishonest fundamentalism. To convey whatever God did does not require a newsreel movie, what God does is not step-by-step like that !!! He is the Creator, Earlier on it said "Let there be light"and the stars appeared. I know you want a step-by-step but WHY ????

"The woman is made "with the rib" that God-Yahweh had taken from the man. Considering the archaic, metaphorical and figurative way of expressing the thought, we can establish that it is a question here of homogeneity of the whole being of both. This homogeneity concerns above all the body, the somatic structure. It is also confirmed by the man's first words to the woman who has been created: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh" (Gn 2:23). Yet the words quoted refer also to the humanity of the male. They must be read in the context of the affirmations made before the creation of the woman, in which, although the "incarnation" of the man does not yet exist, she is defined as "a helper fit for him" (cf. Gn 2:18 and 2:20). In this way, therefore, the woman is created, in a sense, on the basis of the same humanity."

The rib is closest to Man's heart ...
 

Not only was Sir Francis Galton a famous geographer and statistician, he also invented "eugenics" in 1883. Eugenics, defined as the science of improving racial stock, was developed from a new heredity theory, conceived by Galton himself, and from the evolution theory of Charles Darwin, transposed to human society by Herbert Spencer. Galton's eugenics was a program to artificially produce a better human race through regulating marriage and thus procreation. Galton put particular emphasis on "positive eugenics", aimed at encouraging the physically and mentally superior members of the population to choose partners with similar traits. In 1904, he presented his ideas in front of a vast audience of physicians and scientists in London. His widely-publicized lecture served as the starting point for the development of eugenics groups in Europe and the United States during the first half of the 20th century.

Eugenics is the natural next step after one comes to "believe" in Darwinian evolution. If the fittest survive, those who survive must have been the fittest. Amongst animals and plants, the selection is entirely natural. But - so must think the Darwinist - most of humanities scientific advancement have consisted of adopting natural processes to human needs.

Darwinism is completely incompatible with the idea that each human being has equal worth. The belief that one human being is as worthy as another must be driven by either faith, or humanism. It should be no surprise that shortly after Darwin's theory gained wide publicity, those who sought to engineer what they saw as improvements in humanity used them to propagate their ideas.

Of course, none of that means that Darwinism should not be taught. It must be, as it has wide support among those who are curious about the origins of life on Earth. But, it should never be taught as a dogma, only as one theory of how the diversity of species was arrived at.

The misuse of the theory and its consequences should be included. Why not? Origin of species is history, not science.
THe man known as the American Aristotle (C S Peirce)said something similar

" The gospel of Christ says that progress comes from every individual merging his individuality in sympathy with his neighbors. On the other side, the conviction of the nineteenth century is that progress takes place by virtue of every individual's striving for himself with all his might and trampling his neighbor under foot whenever he gets a chance to do so. This may accurately be called the Gospel of Greed."
 

Forum List

Back
Top