Darwinists, eugenicists, and new stories at The Mindful Hack
|April 2, 2007||Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design|
Recently, there was a bit of correspondence between moderators of our list about the question of whether aggressive Darwinists can be accused of being like Nazis.
Now, my own view on this subject is as follows: I don’t really care whether Darwinists who routinely launch or justify persecutions against non-materialists are offended. It’s absolutely fine with me if they realize that their actions are closely observed and recorded.
I am concerned rather about any offence given to victims of Nazis and their children/grandchildren by too-casual use of such terms. When I was young (and, for a brief period, sick), I was cared for by several nurses who had camp tattoos on their forearms.
Enough of that. Is the modern Darwinist typically a eugenicist? No, not typically, and that is something that has always puzzled me.
As you know, I have myself written several posts on the fundamental incoherence of Darwinists on the issue of eugenics, which Darwin himself brilliantly (and, I am sure, unwittingly!) demonstrated by his attitude to the Irish in his day.
Darwin – observing that, in the natural course of events, the Irish would overtake the other ethnic groups in the British Isles – considered it a disaster, instead of taking the opportunity to call attention to the normal outworking of natural selection. (The unkillability of the Irish was certainly NOT because of any special favor granted to them in Darwin’s day- quite the opposite.)
The eugenic heritage is something that Darwinists have never properly dealt with – probably because they can’t.
The embarrassing problem is NOT that today’s Darwinists are really racists or anti-Semites but don’t want to be tarred as such. That’s clearly untrue.
Rather, the embarrassing problem is that the early Darwinists didn’t really believe what they wanted the public to believe – that natural selection created all things bright and beautiful. So they felt they had to interfere when they didn’t like what they were seeing – hence, eugenics.
And today’s Darwinist doesn’t justify his NON-interference (i.e., distaste for eugenics) on the grounds that natural selection is at work and should not be interfered with. No, he grabs the notion of “human rights” whole from non-eugenic systems that don’t even try to address the question from a Darwinian perspective.
Because he doesn’t really believe either? But he wants me to? Stranger things have happened.
By the way, I posted these stories today at The Mindful Hack:
Consciousness – an unsolved problem revisited, as yet another materialist finds comfort in Darwinian evolution.
How the National Council of Churches ended up being supported by political, not spiritual, concerns.
How destructive Western therapy cults can infiltrate Eastern spiritual practices.
Alternative medicine is all just bunk? Probably not all just bunk. In a materialist environment, how can we know?
The Stanford Prison experiment: The difference between nice and good. Also, O’Leary recalls a psych experiment that might not be allowed today.
Feeling robots? – Well, as long as you feel they feel, it is true for you. Or so they say. You’ll be doing all the feeling.