Suck it up Buttercup: On Leftist History of Science Denialism

_{Barry Arrington

April 25, 2017

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Refusing To Believe Early Progressives Loved Eugenics Will Not Erase The Horrible Truth

After seeing the end result [of pushing eugenics in the early 20th century] in the Holocaust, progressives naturally sought to bury their connection to this genocidal concept, and succeeded in doing so, at least when they can discredit conservatives who persist in mentioning it. That problem bubbled to the surface last week when Bloomberg’s economist and writer Noah Smith tweeted, “Apparently some people believe that eugenics was the scientific consensus 100 years ago. Sounds like a total myth to me.”

Comments

john_a_designer,
Did Darwin himself personally advocate eugenics? In this controversial quote from The Descent of Man it appears that he did.
I don’t know how anyone can read that as anything but an argument against eugenics (and if the same words were said by pretty much anyone else I have little doubt that that’s how it would be read). Could there possibly be some benefits to enforced selective breeding and humans abandoning all feelings of sympathy? Maybe. Even the typical young-earth Creationist would admit that, for instance, some hereditary diseases may be eliminated. But at what cost? Any (potential) benefits would be greatly outweighed by the negatives. What is there to disagree with? Also, Darwin didn’t give proponents of eugenics anything that they hadn’t had for centuries, even millennia (Plato advocated a form of eugenics far more extreme than anything promoted by anyone in Darwin’s family).
Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing ‘to cut off communication’ with his disciple Mivart when the latter ‘criticized an article by Darwin’s son George that advocated eugenics.’”
It wasn’t Mivart’s objection to eugenics that upset Darwin and caused him to cut off communication. Most of Darwin’s closest friends were extremely anti-eugenics. T. H. Huxley, for instance, made numerous, strongly worded arguments, against eugenics: “There is no hope that mere human beings will ever possess enough intelligence to select the fittest.” “I do not see how such selection could be practiced without a serious weakening, it may be the destruction, of the bonds which hold society together.” “I sometimes wonder whether people, who talk so freely about extirpating the unfit, ever dispassionately consider their own history. Surely, one must be very “fit,” indeed, not to know of an occasion, or perhaps two, in one’s life, when it would have been only too easy to qualify for a place among the “unfit.”” And Huxley was equally angered at Mivart: “If anybody tries that on with my boy Leonard the old wolf will shew all the fangs he has left by that time, depend upon it.” What angered Charles was that Mivart was malicious and completely misrepresented what his son George had wrote – he even encouraged George to take Mivart to court for libel. Charles, BTW, had cut off communication with Mivart years earlier because of Mivart doing that same thing against him: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-8145.xml https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-8156A.xml Darwin, in light of Mivart committing the same offense – this time against his son – merely reiterated his earlier letters.goodusername_{April 29, 2017
April
04
Apr
29
29
2017
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

hgp @ 27
I don’t get your argument.
Which is more likely to move people to act in a certain way, emotion or reason?
But sympathy and empathy are feelings, and as feelings go, they can be manipulated. And they get manipulated. P.e. politicians do this all the time for quite a lot of ignoble reasons.
So do advertisers. But while politicians may be able to sway your vote and advertisers influence your choice of smartphone, could either of them persuade you to kill yourself or murder your family or friends? I'm sure that you, like everyone else here, would go to great lengths to protect your family and friends. I'm equally sure you can understand others doing the same for their family and friends. My argument is that those shared interests and empathy for others is a much surer basis for morality than anything else.
An if we see empathy and sympathy as incidental evolutionary traits, then there is even less reason not to ignore them from time to time. Saying “this emotion would have helped our forefathers 200.000 years ago to survive in the savannah” is hardly a reason to see my emotions as compelling moral prescriptions, since I live far removed from any savannah.
At a fundamental level have human needs and interests really changed much in all that time? The advantages of co-operating with our fellows in society are just as real now as they were 200,000 years ago.
I didn’t get, what Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk provided as support for your position, but I’m not really a star trek fan
I just quoted that little exchange because it was making the same point as I am.Seversky_{April 28, 2017
April
04
Apr
28
28
2017
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT}

john_a_designer @ 29 Since we are recycling old posts, here is my previous response:
When someone claims, as Seversky has claimed on this thread, there is no moral truth (because morality in his view is “subjective”) he is making a universal truth claim about moral truth which is obviously self-refuting. By analogy he is making a claim like, “This sentence is false.”
This depends on what you mean by truth. On the correspondence theory of truth a statement is true to the extent to which it is found to correspond to what it purports to describe. In other words, it is about what is. Moral claims prescribe how human beings should behave towards one another. In other words, they are about what ought to be and, as such, they are not capable of being either true or false since they are not claims about what is.
Morality is useless and meaningless unless it is about interpersonal moral obligation. The golden rule is one such moral principle which meaningless unless there really is interpersonal moral obligation.
How do you arrive at interpersonal moral obligation except by intersubjective agreement?
Seversky’s subjective beliefs and opinions carry no such moral obligation. If he claim they do he is contradicting himself. Of course, I suppose he has a right to believe whatever foolish nonsense he wishes to believe, but there is obligation for me or anyone else to take him seriously.
You don’t have to take me seriously at all if you don’t want to but if people freely enter into an agreement about what are the best ways to behave towards one another in society then they are under a self-imposed obligation to live up to the terms of that agreement. Obligations need not be imposed from outside. In fact, I would argue that the obligations that people are most likely to live up to are precisely those that they entered into of their own free will.
Secondly, if his “morality” is completely subjective then he is the one who sets the moral standards for himself. His moral standards don’t apply to anyone else. How could they?
I decide what is moral from my point of view just as others decide what is moral from their various different points of view. But what is to prevent us from discovering that we have some views in common and maybe coming to some agreement on others, in other words, a common morality reached through intersubjective agreement?
Finally, to have any type of meaningful discussion about morality, it has to be honest. Honesty requires an objective standard– doesn’t it?
Honesty is the behavioral property of not lying or deceiving, of being truthful as far as possible. You can only measure the honesty of someone to the extent that you can test claims that they make. But in many cases, claims are not testable. If someone tells you they like the same type of music as you, how do you tell if they mean it or they are lying to flatter you? You want an objective standard of honesty, something infallible and certain, where I would say no such thing exists or is possible. In reality we make the best judgements we can based on the limited information available and make a rough evaluation about how much confidence we have in those judgements.
So why does Seversky even bother? Why does he continue argue that something that only he believes must be believed by everyone else? Again that is a self-refuting if not an irrational and absurd position.
I’m not arguing that everybody must believe what I believe, I’m suggesting that we can all get together and, given honesty and good will, we can reach an agreement on various moral issues through rational discussions. It may not be quick or easy but I believe it can be done. What alternative is there? To those who prefer some sort of Divine Command morality – good is whatever God says it is – I would ask how He arrived at those judgements. Did He just toss a celestial coin to decide them or were they reached through a process of reasoning? If decided by the equivalent of a coin toss then what moral value can they possibly have. We could do the same and it would be just as meaningless. If decided by reason then what is to prevent us as (sometimes) rational beings from doing the same. Maybe our power of reason is more limited than that of a god but we still have one so why not use it?
Seversky_{April 28, 2017
April
04
Apr
28
28
2017
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Here is a reminder, eugenics, has never really gone away. It’s just that it’s advocates no longer call it that.
It’s worth remembering not only that early progressivism was steeped in eugenics, but also that early-’70s abortion politics was played out in the shadow of Paul Ehrlich’s population-bomb theory. Former vice president Al Gore has already broached the idea of “fertility management.” Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, a few years ago: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” You thought right. Today, abortion is used as a means of exterminating a class of humans deemed unworthy of life — those with Down syndrome.
In other words, “fertility management,” is one of the new terms for eugenics. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447166/bill-nye-repulsive-viewsjohn_a_designer_{April 28, 2017
April
04
Apr
28
28
2017
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

hgp, Indeed, like you, I and others have been over this same ground again and again.
When someone claims, as Seversky has claimed [before], there is no moral truth (because morality in his view is “subjective”) he is making a universal truth claim about moral truth which is obviously self-refuting. By analogy he is making a claim like, “This sentence is false.” Morality is useless and meaningless unless it is about interpersonal moral obligation. The golden rule is one such moral principle which [is] meaningless unless there really is interpersonal moral obligation. Seversky’s subjective beliefs and opinions carry no such moral obligation. If he claim they do he is contradicting himself. Of course, I suppose he has a right to believe whatever foolish nonsense he wishes to believe, but there is [no] obligation for me or anyone else to take him seriously. Secondly, if his “morality” is completely subjective then he is the one who sets the moral standards for himself. His moral standards don’t apply to anyone else. How could they? Finally, to have any type of meaningful discussion about morality, it has to be honest. Honesty requires an objective standard– doesn’t it? But by whose standard? Yours, mine or somebody else’s? Unless there is a non-arbitrary or objective standard of honesty any discussion or debate about morality and ethics is totally meaningless. Why should I trust anyone unless I know he/she is being completely honest? But how can I know that they are being honest unless there is an objective standard of honesty? So why does Seversky even bother? Why does he continue argue that something that only he believes must be believed by everyone else? Again that is a self-refuting if not an irrational and absurd position.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-science-ground-morality/#comment-625789john_a_designer_{April 28, 2017
April
04
Apr
28
28
2017
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

seversky @ 26
I would call that perhaps the best foundation there could be.
I don't get your argument. I can see, that empathy and sympathy give us a reason to "treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves". But sympathy and empathy are feelings, and as feelings go, they can be manipulated. And they get manipulated. P.e. politicians do this all the time for quite a lot of ignoble reasons. And since we know, that such feelings can be manipulated, we can choose to ignore them at times. So we must take into account that we might act sympathetically, because we are manipulated without realizing this fact, or we might act not sympathetically, because we think we are manipulated. And in addition we might choose ignore our sympathetic emotions at times for purely selfish and/or immoral reasons. A foundation for morality is something, that gives us a compelling reason to accept moral prescriptions as binding on us. It is hard to see, how an emotion that is possibly manipulated can compel us not to ignore it. An if we see empathy and sympathy as incidental evolutionary traits, then there is even less reason not to ignore them from time to time. Saying "this emotion would have helped our forefathers 200.000 years ago to survive in the savannah" is hardly a reason to see my emotions as compelling moral prescriptions, since I live far removed from any savannah. In the light of this your argument doesn't really address the problem. I didn't get, what Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk provided as support for your position, but I'm not really a star trek fan. BTW I see that you chose not to answer my post here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/can-science-ground-morality/#comment-626114hgp_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

john_a_designer @ 25
If you accept Darwin’s thinking and the materialism it was based on, the “foundation” for modern morality is only, “an incidental [accidental?] result of the instinct of sympathy…” Of course, I would hardly call that a foundation.
I would call that perhaps the best foundation there could be. If we acknowledge the is/ought problem then we must accept that neither atheism nor materialism, as claims about what is , can provide grounds for moralities which prescribe how we ought to behave towards one another. In fact, I would argue that it is precisely our capacity for sympathy and empathy that is most likely to ensure that we treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves. Or, to put it another way, for a Trekkie like myself, there is this exchange from the original series episode The Immunity Syndrome
SPOCK: I've noticed that about your people, Doctor. You find it easier to understand the death of one than the death of a million. You speak about the objective hardness of the Vulcan heart, yet how little room there seems to be in yours. MCCOY: Suffer the death of thy neighbour, eh, Spock? You wouldn't wish that on us, would you? SPOCK: It might have rendered your history a bit less bloody.
Seversky_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Did Darwin himself personally advocate eugenics? In this controversial quote from The Descent of Man it appears that he did.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.[8]
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes I think the Wikiquote’s contributor is correct when he/she says that Ben Stein in the film documentary Expelled over reached when he suggested “that Darwin provided a [direct] rationale for the activities of the Nazis.” Indeed, there is no evidence that Darwin would have had kind of sympathy for the Nazis. Nevertheless, that doesn’t mean that he had nothing to do with eugenics (please note carefully the lines I have italicized above,) which was used in America to forcefully sterilize members of society who were deemed to be unfit or undesirable. That did in turn, however, provide an indirect rationale for the Nazi eugenics program, which in 1940 went beyond involuntary sterilization to involuntary euthanasia, and that was only the beginning… However, modern day supporters of Darwin don’t even want to acknowledge that much. In her book review of John West’s book, Darwin Day in America, Anne Barbeau Gardiner writes:
Darwinists are always trying to set a distance between the theory of evolution and the eugenics movement, but West cites Darwin, in The Descent, as approving of how "the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated" among "savages," and disapproving of how civilized men "build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick," with the result that "the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind." Then, comparing man to livestock, Darwin added, "no one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." After this statement, he gave lip service to compassion for the weak, but the implication remained that such compassion undercut the survival of the human race. Darwin again complained about how "the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members." He would return to this point in his last conversations with Alfred Russel Wallace, speaking "very gloomily on the future of humanity" because "in our modern civilization natural selection had no play, and the fittest did not survive." (Although Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," Darwin readily appropriated it as an "accurate" description of natural selection.) The Darwinian basis for eugenics is often downplayed, West observes, yet it is a fact that eugenicists drew their "inspiration" directly from Darwinian biology. A number of the chief eugenicists of the early 20th century declared that natural selection was the "law" they followed to improve the race.
According to Gardiner, West also argues that it is clear that “Darwin prepared the way for eugenics,” because, “his immediate family… [became] involved in [the] movement -- his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as "president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain"), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the "eugenics crusade." Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing ‘to cut off communication’ with his disciple Mivart when the latter ‘criticized an article by Darwin's son George that advocated eugenics.’" http://www.discovery.org/a/7251 However, I think the most alarming two lines of Darwin’s, The Descent of Man, quote are the following: “The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts…” If you accept Darwin’s thinking and the materialism it was based on, the “foundation” for modern morality is only, “an incidental [accidental?] result of the instinct of sympathy…” Of course, I would hardly call that a foundation.john_a_designer_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

HP, pardon directness but no. Science is a reasoned, responsible activity that seeks the empirically grounded truth about our world through investigations, analysis, discussion of findings etc. All of this is deeply pervaded with soberingly challenging moral duties. Truthfulness in reporting of observations, diligence in designing and implementing investigations, courage to stand against the tide if necessary and more are all implied. As, BTW is the premise that to be rational, we must be responsibly free and capable of making proper insight driven logical inferences. Going beyond, at all times, a Scientist is duty bound by the normal principles of responsible citizenship and of being a good neighbour -- especially, a highly educated one. Indeed, your response is highlighting to me again the need for a standardised Ethics of Science course in science major programmes, similar to the ones often termed Engineer in Society. A key anchor point for such would be case studies on key and reasonably relevant history, including especially the story of eugenics. The story on the development, design and use of nuclear weapons is also a second, chilling case -- and we need to study both the German and the Allied sides, also the Russian side given how espionage pervaded the Manhattan Project. The resort to gas warfare a century past now is yet another case, one where I think it was Haber (of Haber Synthesis) will not come off well at all. Somewhere in there we need to distinguish ethically sound studiousness and inquisitiveness from vicious curiosity -- a theme that came out in H G Wells' novels. And yes I deliberately gave one bio-med, one physics, one chem. The story of the Scientific Revolution, soundly studied could move beyond hagiography, too. BTW, I think most medical programmes do have such a component, and Med is in effect an applied science. Those scientists who become applied, in addition, need to do engineer in society stuff. Educators, need exposure to ethics of education. Truth be told, if a lot of that were actually done and taken seriously, much of the hot and nasty controversy and tactics surrounding the debates over the design inference would simply evaporate. KFkairosfocus_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

the implications if it happened to be true
There would only be implications if your theory has built-in philosophy or cosmology. You are tripping over what it means to a larger picture that is not necessarily scientifically painted. Not an amoral activity. Andrewasauber_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: "HP, whether in darwinist form or in the more ancient sophistical one, evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral." As are all scientific theories. Evolutionary theory is either a good explanation of reality or it is not. Just because we don't like the implications if it happened to be true doesn't change the fact that the theory itself is morally neutral.hammaspeikko_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

HP, whether in darwinist form or in the more ancient sophistical one, evolutionary materialism is inherently amoral. Plato:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
KFkairosfocus_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

Florabama: "Darwinism is not morally neutral." Sure it is. It is how we deal with it that has moral implications. The same applies to Newton (using his theory to direct mortar assaults) and Einstein (using his theory to build nuclear weapons). "If evolution is true, how are we different than the tiger?" No stripes.hammaspeikko_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

Darwinism is not morally neutral. If true it has moral implications -- in fact if true, morality is only a mythical construct. The male tiger which kills the cubs of the rival male so he can mate with the female, has not committed a moral evil has he? If evolution is true, how are we different than the tiger?Florabama_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT}

Florabama: "Have people throughout history tried to appeal to the Bible to justify evil? Of course, but that’s not the Bible’s fault and much of the evil laid at the Bible’s feet, is more myth than reality." I wasn't trying to say that it was the bible's fault. Any more than the mis-use of knowledge is science's fault. Scientific theories such as those proposed by Newton, Einstein and Darwin have all been used for immoral purposes. That doesn't mean that any of these theories is wrong. Whether or not they are wrong is based on the evidence supporting them.hammaspeikko_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT}

hammaspeikko @ 16, your litany sounds like left wing talking points that lack content or context... Slavery -- it was Christians who worked to abolish chattel slavery (see William Wilberforce) and it was condemned with the death penalty in the Bible. “Kidnappers must be put to death, whether they are caught in possession of their victims or have already sold them as slaves." Exodus 21:16 (NLT) Bigotry -- condemned all through the Bible along with envy, jealousy, covetousness, etc. The Crusades -- a defensive war against Islam which arose 500 years after Christianity and was intent on overtaking "Christendom." Were there abuses? Of course. Every war has abuses but the Crusades themselves were not an illegitimate use of power any more than the French resistance was to the Nazis. Homophobia? What does that contentless word mean? Fear of homosexuals? Being mean to homosexuals? I am neither afraid of homosexuals nor do I treat them with disrespect, but neither of those things mean that I should be forced to accept their behavior as normal. I believe those practicing homosexuality to be made in the image of God which is the same view that I have of rapists and child molesters and other democrats, but homosexuality is condemned in the Bible as a moral perversion, just as rape, adultery and the aforementioned, envy and jealousy. If calling homosex, perversion, makes me a homophobe, then so be it, but you really should find a new word, as agreeing with the Bible that homosex is a moral perversion, does not translate into being afraid of homosexuals. Have people throughout history tried to appeal to the Bible to justify evil? Of course, but that's not the Bible's fault and much of the evil laid at the Bible's feet, is more myth than reality.Florabama_{April 27, 2017
April
04
Apr
27
27
2017
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Seversky@14, I agree. All science did was to provide some sort of justification for people/society/the powers that be/ to do what they always wanted to do. Just as the bible was used to justify slavery, bigotry, the crusades and homophobia. None of these can be rationally justified, but if given the false authority of science or religion, any number of atrocious things can be "justified".hammaspeikko_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

CannuckianYankee @ 10
Hardly. It starts from the assumption of “poor design,” which is manifestly Darwinian
Hardly. It starts from the observation of what looks like “poor design,” which is manifestly what we would expect to see from a Darwinian perspectiveSeversky_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT}

The problem with the eugenics movement was that it jumped the gap between 'is' and 'ought'. Science had revealed something of what 'is' but it was society - or at least a broad cross-section of the most influential figures in society - that decided how it ought to be implemented. There were certainly scientists who advocated it but, on their own, they could no more have applied it then than they could today. It required not just the endorsement but the active promotion of eugenics by a range of politicians, academics and religious leaders and groups for it to be implemented to the extent it was, including what we now regard as the most notorious breaches of human rights and medical ethics. Science played a role but that doesn't get those other groups off the hook.Seversky_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PDT}

harry @ 4 - I hope you're aware that some (possibly many) who supported eugenics thought as you do. JBS Haldane springs to mind. You claim that "Eugenics is the ultimate in imposing one’s “morality” and “values” on others" seems hyperbolic. Especially as prominent eugenicists from the left wrote a manifesto where they were explicit that a couple's "artificial ... control over the processes of parentage" would always be voluntary. (actually, that manifesto is fascinating in that so much of what it lays out is not about genetics at all).Bob O'H_{April 26, 2017
April
04
Apr
26
26
2017
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

News, I think the real issue is that Eugenics shows how dangerously wrong a "consensus" of our "betters" can be, even one dressed up in the wonderful lab coat or Doctor's coat. But then, if we paid attention to Ari in The Rhetoric, Bk 1 Ch 2, we would long since have understood that persuasive appeals play on pathos, ethos, logos. Where, emotions are no sounder than underlying perceptions and judgements, no authority is better than facts and reasoning tied to quality of premises, so to the facts and logic we must go. Which, at minimum, is very much an acquired taste. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

RVB8, we are still waiting on your list of challenges to Christians. Pardon a cross-thread note but a necessity in the wider work of UD. KFkairosfocus_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT}

rvb8 "If anything isn’t eugenics designing intelligently." Hardly. It starts from the assumption of "poor design," which is manifestly Darwinian.CannuckianYankee_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

rvb8: Your "atheistic morality" should inform you that they might do it to you anyway, and if you do it first and best you'll probably get away with it.LocalMinimum_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT}

I have 3-4 books from the 1920's that speak glowingly of eugenics, and the tie into evolution. In fact, H. G. Wells' (et al) book, _The Science of Life_ speaks of it, and the authors' state that their only optimism for the future of humanity lies in our implementing eugenics. One of the books is a high school text that my father and aunt used in the early 1930's. Like the Holocaust, progressives are now embarrassed by their predecessors having embraced eugenics. But I shall retain these books as proof that it was a popular idea.EDTA_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT}

I am very able to descern News's titles, they usually have openings such as, 'Guess What..', or, 'Coffee...', or 'Darwinbots Say...' etc etc. Now I am seeing a patern as desperation replaces 'research', at the DI. 'Suck it up Buttercup.' Really!? In what conceivable way does this post aid ID? If anything isn't eugenics designing intelligently. We have weak and sick members of society so we remove them. Sounds entirely logical and 'designed' to me. Of course as an atheist I must object, based upon my atheistic morality that says, 'if I do that to them, might not they do that to me?' Or more simply, 'I am a human being, and this is wrong.' The people who fought a war with, Gott mit uns', on their belt buckles would of course disagree with my materialist conclusions. Another nail in the coffin of evolutionary biology, thunders into the world of science, courtesy of the research wing of the DI. Evolutionary biology reels.rvb8_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

Barry, all I am suggesting is that it is society (government, dictators, monarchies) who are responsible for how knowledge is used. Not the people discovering that knowledge. When we discover something new, do you really expect the discoverers to have figured out all possible evil (or poor) uses of their discovery?hammaspeikko_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PDT}

hammaspeikko @ 4. Reify much? Look up what "reify" means. Then your error will be clear to you.Barry Arrington_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

I guess the real question is whether science has the moral obligation , or if society does. My understanding is that science is amoral (not immoral). Science has brought us nuclear medicine. Society has brought us nuclear bombs. Science has brought us vaccines. Society has brought us biological weapons.hammaspeikko_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

See also: To All of Those We Mutilated, “Our Bad, But At Least We Weren’t Science Deniers” My word, no. they were total Science Acceptance bunnies. Call it science and they accept it.
In 1921 the Second International Eugenics Congress was held in New York at the American Museum of Natural History. Leonard Darwin (Charles Darwin’s son) was the keynote speaker, and he used the opportunity to advocate aggressive eugenics programs for the “elimination of the unfit.” Eugenics had already made some headway in the United States, but after the Second Congress it really took off in the scientific community. Hundreds of universities instituted courses in the subject, and prestigious foundations like the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller Foundation began funding Eugenics research programs. Public policy soon followed the scientific consensus of the time and eventually 36 states adopted eugenics laws of some kind. In 1927 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., writing for the Supreme Court blessed the movement, famously declaring in Buck v. Bell that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” These laws were supported by the overwhelming scientific consensus of the day.
In the following decades nearly 60,000 people were legally mutilated in the United States.
But Cool means that Smith is right and some dumbass hillbilly historian is wrong, no matter what the facts say. That’s the beauty of post-fact science. These situations also help explain why a lot of scientists are out marchin’, marchin’ to get back credibility they have lost, among the declining few who believe that facts do matter. Oh never mind. The facts can always be discredited in one superlative tweet.News_{April 25, 2017
April
04
Apr
25
25
2017
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply