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

[Libby von H]

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.

Okay, wrong both times.
Selfish Gene was mocked intensely by the academic community
Margorie Grene
Mary Midgely , both English philosophers (and both atheist by the way) thought the whole idea was sht

“The notable thing about his story here is not its atheism but its fatalism. The drama that it presents of helpless humans enslaved by a callous fate-figure is, of course, not new and, like all such myths, it conveys not just meaninglessness but a positive, sinister meaning – the presence of an active oppressor.”
― Mary Midgley, The Solitary Self: Darwin and the Selfish Gene

Marjorie Grene
BLVR: What about ideas about replication and transmission? Could they tend towards the reductionism that I’ve seen you argue against in your work, sort of like Dawkins’s selfish gene? That we can explain everything with just a look towards what happens in DNA, without the context in which it happens, or the environment in which it is situated?

MG: That depends on your general attitude. It doesn’t depend on the double helix, though. Well, of course, Crick was a very extreme reductionist, yes. He gave a talk in Washington, I don’t remember when, and he was nothing but reductionist about genes. It was awful. But you can discover the structure of anything, and it doesn’t take it out of its context.

 

[Donald H]

Okay, wrong both times.
Selfish Gene was mocked intensely by the academic community
Margorie Grene
Mary Midgely , both English philosophers (and both atheist by the way) thought the whole idea was sht

“The notable thing about his story here is not its atheism but its fatalism. The drama that it presents of helpless humans enslaved by a callous fate-figure is, of course, not new and, like all such myths, it conveys not just meaninglessness but a positive, sinister meaning – the presence of an active oppressor.”
― Mary Midgley, The Solitary Self: Darwin and the Selfish Gene

Marjorie Grene
BLVR: What about ideas about replication and transmission? Could they tend towards the reductionism that I’ve seen you argue against in your work, sort of like Dawkins’s selfish gene? That we can explain everything with just a look towards what happens in DNA, without the context in which it happens, or the environment in which it is situated?

MG: That depends on your general attitude. It doesn’t depend on the double helix, though. Well, of course, Crick was a very extreme reductionist, yes. He gave a talk in Washington, I don’t remember when, and he was nothing but reductionist about genes. It was awful. But you can discover the structure of anything, and it doesn’t take it out of its context.

Literal believers like you are rare. Or at least it's rare that any would still state their beliefs against Dawkins and Darwin. It could be that there are many more like you that are biding their time in hopes that it all becomes quite literally true!

Those weren't Giraffe necks sticking out of the upper deck on the ark, they were Brontosaurus!

Go play hon.

 

[Hector12]

[Sir Francis Galton: the father of eugenics] - PubMed

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...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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.

Are you trying to disprove Darwinian evolution by its association with eugenics? It makes more sense to say that the truth of Darwinian evolution proves that some form of eugenics is necessary.

The Nazi effort to exterminate the most superior race on earth does not mean that there are no inferior races and no inferior people.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Are you trying to disprove Darwinian evolution by its association with eugenics? It makes more sense to say that the truth of Darwinian evolution proves that some form of eugenics is necessary.

No, my point was to show why government has such an interest in promoting Darwinism.

The Nazi effort to exterminate the most superior race on earth does not mean that there are no inferior races and no inferior people.

The problem with eugenics is that someone has to control it. How do we know it won't be morally inferior people who are selecting the people to be deemed mentally and physically inferior?

 

[Hector12]

No, my point was to show why government has such an interest in promoting Darwinism.

The problem with eugenics is that someone has to control it. How do we know it won't be morally inferior people who are selecting the people to be deemed mentally and physically inferior?

I would make sterilization a condition for receiving welfare benefits. That would not be compulsory sterilization, because those refusing to be sterilized would be denied benefits they had done nothing to earn.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I would make sterilization a condition for receiving welfare benefits. That would not be compulsory sterilization, because those refusing to be sterilized would be denied benefits they had done nothing to earn.

I would support that policy, but for economic reasons, not for eugenics.

I agree that it would have the effect of an unspoken version of eugenics.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Are you trying to disprove Darwinian evolution by its association with eugenics? It makes more sense to say that the truth of Darwinian evolution proves that some form of eugenics is necessary.

The Nazi effort to exterminate the most superior race on earth does not mean that there are no inferior races and no inferior people.

Christofascists Use Slippery Predatory Logic

 

[Libby von H]

Literal believers like you are rare. Or at least it's rare that any would still state their beliefs against Dawkins and Darwin. It could be that there are many more like you that are biding their time in hopes that it all becomes quite literally true!

Those weren't Giraffe necks sticking out of the upper deck on the ark, they were Brontosaurus!

Go play hon.

I've said many times (because I've taught Bible at the college level) that I start with GENRE. But literallly with Genre.
Seach my answers, You are intentionally misstating my many posts that show I do not take that view. You can't have a literal or not-literal view of ANY PIECE of literature until you know the GENRE

 

[Libby von H]

Evolution and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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,that is stupid and makes no sense,
reversing the position means only one of 2 things
1)it was never a matter of Faith , in which case neither is the reversal
OR
2) The truly faithful never could know what it is to be truly faithful because a reversal means an awful lot beleived wrongly and might right now be believing wrongly,

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE CREEEDS. Hypothetically, whether true or false evolution can never by DE FIDE

 

[Donald H]

No,that is stupid and makes no sense,
reversing the position means only one of 2 things
1)it was never a matter of Faith , in which case neither is the reversal

Of course it was never a matter of faith! But a reversal would certainly be seen as the Catholic church attempting to return to it's faith.. According to Ding and Meriweather, their church is content and happy with their belief that evolution is a valid choice.

OR
2) The truly faithful never could know what it is to be truly faithful because a reversal means an awful lot beleived wrongly and might right now be believing wrongly,

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE CREEEDS. Hypothetically, whether true or false evolution can never by DE FIDE

The Catholic church can reverse it's position on allowing the faithful to believe in evolution. That doesn't mean that it will. In fact, it's my opinion that the Catholic church has 'upstaged' all the other sects by getting there first. They're still not willing to throw that advantage away on account of the other sects seeing it as blasphemy and Satanic.

What is it that makes no sense to you? It makes perfect sense to both Ding and Meriweather, and they are among the most devoted to the god.

Which of the Christian sects leads the charge toward the new interpretation of the bibles being not literally the truth.
I suspect the Southern Baptists are the last to remain truly faithful.

 

[Libby von H]

Of course it was never a matter of faith! But a reversal would certainly be seen as the Catholic church attempting to return to it's faith.. According to Ding and Meriweather, their church is content and happy with their belief that evolution is a valid choice.

The Catholic church can reverse it's position on allowing the faithful to believe in evolution. That doesn't mean that it will. In fact, it's my opinion that the Catholic church has 'upstaged' all the other sects by getting there first. They're still not willing to throw that advantage away on account of the other sects seeing it as blasphemy and Satanic.

What is it that makes no sense to you? It makes perfect sense to both Ding and Meriweather, and they are among the most devoted to the god.

Which of the Christian sects leads the charge toward the new interpretation of the bibles being not literally the truth.
I suspect the Southern Baptists are the last to remain truly faithful.

But the problem with you is you don't realize NOTHING can be literally the Truth (or false for that matter) UNTIL YOU FIRST KNOW THE GENRE . You apply different but true interpretation to a book that starts "It was a dark and stormy night" or "Once upon a time"
You are in a different forest barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Donald H]

But the problem with you is you don't realize NOTHING can be literally the Truth (or false for that matter) UNTIL YOU FIRST KNOW THE GENRE . You apply different but true interpretation to a book that starts "It was a dark and stormy night" or "Once upon a time"
You are in a different forest barking up the wrong tree.

Some Christian sects interpret their bibles as being 100% the true and literal word of the god.

The Catholics allow their flock to believe what they choose to be literally true and some to be just bunk, that's not intended to be believed.

I'm neither, and so as an atheist I could qualify as a Catholic. What are you?

Fwiw, I do so believe that NOTHING can be literally true in the bibles.