Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Eugenics’ skeleton still rattles left


From Jonathan Freedland, commenting at Britain’s Guardian:

Socialism’s one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable

Hush. Someone is finally being honest about that.

They believed in science and progress, and nothing was more cutting edge and modern than social Darwinism. Man now had the ability to intervene in his own evolution. Instead of natural selection and the law of the jungle, there would be planned selection. And what could be more socialist than planning, the Fabian faith that the gentlemen in Whitehall really did know best? If the state was going to plan the production of motor cars in the national interest, why should it not do the same for the production of babies? The aim was to do what was best for society, and society would clearly be better off if there were more of the strong to carry fewer of the weak.

What was missing was any value placed on individual freedom, even the most basic freedom of a human being to have a child. The middle class and privileged felt quite ready to remove that right from those they deemed unworthy of it.

Eugenics went into steep decline after 1945. Most recoiled from it once they saw where it led – to the gates of Auschwitz. More.

We can’t get past it if we can’t have an honest acknowledgement of the way Darwinism made racism and classism into “science.” It’s intriguing to listen to the special pleading of Darwin’s followers on the subject, when all they need to do is admit it and get past it.

And stop it! For example, what about the ongoing scandal of demands to legislate a national Darwin Day in the United States, despite the dismal record of Darwinian racism? Couldn’t someone just put a cork in the thing? For a start?

See also: Darwin, Nicholas Wade, and the alt right

Follow UD News at Twitter!

The Women's Christian Temperance Union advocated for a clear eugenics policy. Do I therefore blame eugenics on Christian Women, or should I instead look for its rational roots? Bad science, since disproved by science. Will there be many more articles on the Darwin, evolution, human insignificance, Hitler, trope? And why socialism and eugenics, you think capatalism is guiltless? Try these; The Eugenics Records Office, sponsored by Carnegie; The Eugenics Board of North Carolina, hmmm, sounds official; the Rockefeller Foundation helped fund its eugenics methods in Germany, in 1933, you know, when the corporal was popular; oh dear! rvb8
Once you have Evolution to divide organisms into groups of winners and losers, it's just a matter of time before some dumb animal winners instinctively try to get over on the inferior group. Andrew asauber
Yes, that is exactly what eugenics is: mere mortals attempting to direct the "evolution" (we still aren't sure there is any such thing as macro-evolution) of humanity. And whenever this is "legalized" it ends in proving dramatically that when man plays God he becomes a beast instead. To see what I mean google up nazi holocaust victims and then click images. And if you think nothing like that is going on today, do the same with abortion babies Whatever we failed to do for these, the least of His brethren, we failed to do for Him. Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice. And cursed are they who, like the rich man who lived as though what was happening to Lazarus wasn't happening, live as though this holocaust isn't taking place. harry

Leave a Reply