Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

To All of Those We Mutilated, “Our Bad, But At Least We Weren’t Science Deniers”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

If today’ terms of derision had been in use in 1928, anyone opposed to the eugenics movement would have been called a “science denier.”

Comments
The quotes are from: Oppenheim, R. W. (1982). Preformationism and epigenesis in the origns of the nervous system and behavior: Issues, concepts and their history. In P. P. G. Bateson & P. Klopfer (Eds.), Perspectives in Ethology Vol. 5 (pp. 1-100) Oppenheim is speaking of the beliefs of the small group of geneticists pushing eugenics. George William Hunter, the author of the textbook quoted above, advocated segregation. Davenport was a conservative protestant, classist,and conservative. Sanger and Wilson weren't geneticists, were they?REC
May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
REC, Your efforts to whitewash the American scientific community for its scandalous role in this dark chapter of our history are utterly contemptible. And now you are trying slam conservatives in the process. Newsflash REC, eugenics was pushed on both the left and the right. Ever heard of Margaret Sanger? Ever heard of Woodrow Wilson? No conservatives they. Your lies are dangerous. Stop it. Now.Barry Arrington
May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Barry, To be clear, I'm not defending eugenics, which your rhetoric is starting to suggest: "Angry? Yep. If you came into these pages and denied the Holocaust I would be angry." Eugenics was a terrible misuse of science, religion and law. I only take issue with the claim that eugenics was a product of scientific consensus. I'm not the only scientist that holds the view that eugenics was a minority position among geneticists. RW Oppenheim calls it a "relatively small" group who "misused the new findings of genetics to support their conservative, and often racist, ideological preconceptions." In support of this, I listed reasons why genetics really didn't support Eugenics, and famous geneticists who vocally opposed it. In society, they may have been voices in the wilderness, but in genetics, they were giants. In reply, you say that colleges offered eugenics classes. In what departments were these courses housed? Sociology, reproductive medicine, home economics, religion?REC
May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
From Applied Eugenics by Paul Popenoe (1918): The science of eugenics is the natural result of the spread and acceptance of organic evolution, following the publication of Darwin's work on The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, in 1859. It took a generation for his ideas to win the day; but then they revolutionized the intellectual life of the civilized world. Man came to realize that the course of nature is regular; that the observed sequences of events can be described in formulas which are called natural laws; he learned that he could achieve great results in plant and animal breeding by working in harmony with these laws. Then the question logically arose, "Is not man himself subject to these same laws?[Pg 148] Can he not use his knowledge of them to improve his own species, as he has been more or less consciously improving the plants and animals that were of most value to him, for many centuries?" The evolutionist answered both these questions affirmatively. However great may be the superiority of his mind, man is first of all an animal, subject to the natural laws that govern other animals. He can learn to comply with these laws; he can, therefore, take an active share in furthering the process of evolution toward a higher life.OldArmy94
May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
News: Who gave the “government” the right to DO any of this? Did we elect a government to see people off to asylums who would otherwise be killed because they are allegedly “spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country”? You don't think democratic governments have the power to stop crime and disease? Eugenics is associated with heinous compulsion. Without compulsion, voluntary genetic counseling can be an important component of family planning.Zachriel
May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
Re "The Remedy. – If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race." A question from a simple, traditionalist Canadian: Who gave the "government" the right to DO any of this? Did we elect a government to see people off to asylums who would otherwise be killed because they are allegedly "spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country"? What does that even mean? Do people have free will or not? Underlying such beliefs is an assumption that no one chooses to associate with what used to be called "bad company." Bad company can indeed have costs. but - as we used to say - experience is a hard school but fools learn in no other." Apart from the underlying metaphysical naturalism, it is hard to see what Darwinism and its accompanying eugenics have ever gained for us.News
May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Indeed, Heartlander. Eugenics was so mainstream it had penetrated to the level of high school textbooks. Why am I so angry at REC? Because his lies are not just garden variety lies. They are dangerous lies. If those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, how much more so those who affirmatively try to re-write history.Barry Arrington
May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
Improvement of Man. - If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection. Eugenics. - When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand. The most important of these is freedom from germ diseases which might be handed down to the offspring. Tuberculosis, that dread white plague which is still responsible for almost one seventh of all deaths, epilepsy, and feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity. The science is of being well born is called eugenics. Parasitism and its Cost to Society. - Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites. The Remedy. - If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country. - Hunter’s Civic Biology (the textbook at the centre of the Scopes Trial)
Heartlander
May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
With reference to BA77 @7 and Byers @8, I offer up a comment by one of the commenters at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). In a year long stint at trying to communicate with NCSE and its commentators, CdnMacAthiest offered up the following: "I see that BC's crapitude has now been removed. Good to see how reality can obliterate fantasy where it is so inappropriate. Thanks for the community support in sanitizing this valuable & nice meeting room - just a few more vermin to eradicate.... Mac." So the dangerous bias of a main stream so called science advocacy organization such as NCSE raises its ugly head in censoring any thought counter to it's own closed minded world view - to the degree of referring those opposed as "vermin." I reference Byers here because he also has come under such attack at NCSE. When I finally countered CdnMacAthiest in strong terms, I was dismissed and blocked as a commentator. Do we learn from history? Even history as ugly as that of the 1930s and 1940s Nazi regime and the Communism of the 20th century?ayearningforpublius
May 20, 2015
May
05
May
20
20
2015
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community. By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States’ leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.
Unfortunately, I bet I can predict REC's response. How many of these universities were Christian with courses taught by Christians and attended by Christian students?Mung
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
REC @ 10
You come back with angry bluster.
Damn straight I’m angry. The American scientific community was complicit in the outrages perpetrated on the victims of the eugenics movement. This is widely known:
Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community. By 1928 there were 376 separate university courses in some of the United States' leading schools, enrolling more than 20,000 students, which included eugenics in the curriculum.
Yes, there were voices crying in the wilderness (such as Morgan), but contrary to what you say, laws based on eugenics were not passed in spite of the “science”; they were passed based on the "scientific" testimony of eugenicists. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, for example, was based in large part on Congressional testimony of Charles Davenport of the Eugenics Record Office. Yes, I’m angry. It takes you one sentence to lie; it takes a book to refute your lie. Fortunately, there are some good ones out there. War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black is one of the best. Angry? Yep. If you came into these pages and denied the Holocaust I would be angry. For the same reason I am angry when you try to shove the scientific establishment’s complicity in the mutilation of 60,000 innocent victims down the memory hole. You should be ashamed of yourself, but you seem to be utterly shameless.Barry Arrington
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
wd400, the opening of the abstract of the paper you cited states,,,
Eugenics in most western countries in the first four decades of the twentieth century was based on the idea that genes control most human phenotypic traits, everything from physical features such as polydactyly and eye color to physiological conditions such as the A-B-O blood groups to mental and personality traits such as “feeblemindedness”, alcoholism and pauperism. I(n) assessing the development of the eugenics movement – its rise and decline between 1900 and 1950 – it is important to recognize that its naïve assumptions and often flawed methodologies were openly criticized at the time by scientists and non-scientists alike,,, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=bio_facpubs
So since the genetic reductionism model lay behind the eugenics movement, and you apparently now consider genetic reductionism to be 'slipshod and fraudulent' science, do you now deny that most human phenotypic traits are reducible to genetics? Or do you only support the 'slipshod and fraudulent' science of genetic reductionism when it is out of the direct limelight of the eugenics movement?
You are your genes? Oh, maybe not - Jonathan Wells Quote: "Except for some rare pathological conditions, it has been impossible to tie human behavior to specific genes. (The “gay gene” that was much hyped a few years ago turned out to be a mirage.) If human behavior cannot be reduced to genetics, then according to neo-Darwinism it cannot be biologically inherited; if it cannot be biologically inherited, then it cannot evolve in a Darwinian sense." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/you-are-your-genes-oh-maybe-not/#comments Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013 Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,” says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,” says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.,,, the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways. http://www.tunedbody.com/scientists-finally-show-thoughts-can-cause-specific-molecular-changes-genes/
Of related note:
American Eugenics on the Eve of Nazi Expansion: The Darwin Connection - Michael Flannery October 18, 2011 Excerpt: For example, Harry Laughlin (1880-1943) helped create a "Model Sterilization Law" that was vindicated in the Buck v. Bell decision (1927). In Germany, one of the first legislative acts of Hitler's National Socialist government was to pass in the summer of 1933 a "Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring" modeled upon this American precedent. It was the influential American physician George Dock (1860-1951) who translated the German document for the Human Betterment Foundation. "I think the reference to the California work [in the German law], and the work of the Foundation is a very significant thing," exclaimed Dock. "The matter," he added, "has given me a much better opinion of Mr. Hitler than I had before" (Better for All the Word, p. 273). Likewise, Laughlin, noted with some pride, "To one versed in the history of eugenical sterilization in America, the text of the German statute reads almost like the 'American model sterilization law.'" No wonder that in 1936 the Nazi regime awarded Laughlin, under the aegis of the University of Heidelberg, an honorary doctorate for his contributions to "racial hygiene" (Better for All the World, p. 17). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/american_eugenics_on_the_eve_o_1051991.html
bornagain77
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
There was a time when America had one of the greatest leaders ever..... "Man is not free unless government is limited." Ronald ReaganAndre
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
I provided a response that anyone can verify. Google Muller or Punnet or Morgan and eugenics...
Indeed, even other eugenicists thought the US eugenics movement was somewhere between slipshod and fraudulent. Interesting reading for folks that want to learn something about this topic.[pdf]wd400
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
Liberal churches in the beginning, and to this day, jump on the Darwinian bandwagon: Since Darwin's book ‘Origin of Species’, besides being bad science, is also rife with bad theology, it is not surprising that the liberal ‘unscientific’ clergy of Darwin’s day were very eager to jump on the Darwinian bandwagon from the beginning, whilst the ‘scientific’ clergy shunned it:
“Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species
And liberal churches to this day continue to be hoodwinked by Darwinian propaganda
“The Clergy Letter Project.” as of 2006 over 10,200 clergy had signed this letter. The Clergy Letter Project has been officially endorsed by The United Methodist Church! Read more about the endorsement here. And click here to read a piece entitled "The Rightful Place of Science - In Church" by Bishop Sally Dyck, Northern Illinois Annual Conference, United Methodist Church. Similarly, click here to read a piece entitled "The Clergy Letter Project" by Bishop Ernest S. Lyght, West Virginia Annual Conference, United Methodist Church. The Clergy Letter Project has been officially endorsed by the Southeast Florida Diocese of the Episcopal Church! Read more about the endorsement here. The Clergy Letter Project has been officially endorsed by the Southwestern Washington Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America! Read more about the endorsement here. etc.. http://theclergyletterproject.org/
Of related note:
The Descent of Darwin (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - Pastor Joe Boot - video - 16:30 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996 Charles Darwin's use of theology in the Origin of Species - STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin's positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin's theological language about God's accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin's mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin's positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin's overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin's science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys - Paul Nelson - September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise's Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous "God-wouldn't-have-done-it-that-way" arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky's essay "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky's essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: "Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist's arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky's arguments.",, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/09/methodological_1089971.html Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? - Dilley S. - 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky's famous article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution," in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky's arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God's nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky's theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists--such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould--also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740
bornagain77
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT
OT: We've probably all been accused at one time or another of "confusing the map with the territory." I've been thinking on this recently and concluded that it reveals more than what the person saying it usually intends. This was recently put into fine words over at TSZ by William J. Murray. I think it's worth quoting here. Elizabeth Liddle (who else):
You are confusing the map with the territory.
William J. Murray:
No, I’m pointing out that without the map, you have no way of discerning which is the map and which is the territory. The map is primary because it determines not only what is map and what is territory, but how the map represents the territory and what the relationship between the two is. Also, the map describes the territory, and that is the only knowledge you can have about the territory. At the end of the day, all you know about the “territory” is written on a map. Without the map you have nothing. For the conscious, subjective human agent, “the territory” is and can be nothing more than a conjectural mental construct based on how we interpret perceptions. The “territory” may or may not actually exist “out there”.
Mung
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
Cross@5.....there are a lot of resources on that Dr Christine Rosen, Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, Oxford University Press, New York, 2004 is perhaps the best. Maybe ones some of you will believe: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/creationist-support-of-eugenics-and-genocide-in-the-past/ http://creation.com/hooray-for-eugenics This is the apology of the United Methodist church for their role: http://umc-gbcs.org/resolutions/repentance-for-support-of-eugenicsREC
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
At the same time, churches had eugenicists as an official position of power.
REC's argument is imminently plausible. Christians had to be on board with it for the laws to pass in 36 states. Makes me wonder which laws I might be supporting that I ought not. Oh wait, I am against the passing of any new laws! (Unless they will protect us from those Godless democrats.) Not to worry. :)Mung
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
"Do you really expect anyone to believe that 3/4 of the states passed eugenics laws based on a minority scientific view?" Yes. The US was, and remains, astonishingly anti-scientific. Do you think science overcame the racism, and classism of the era? I provided a response that anyone can verify. Google Muller or Punnet or Morgan and eugenics. You come back with angry bluster. I also mentioned their rationale.REC
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Barry @ 4, that was an incredible response. You knocked it out of Fenway Park and it looks like it will make Dodger Stadium. BOOM!Florabama
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
It is scary for several reasons. First it just evil to define peoples worth by fitness. So anti Christian anmd anti American. Second it was coming from those who were begining to say they were the smarter people in America. Before that intelligence was for everyone with effort. Now they were saying they were a cut above. Like in europe a intelligentsia. Very un American and still with us. They were organizing big groups to male a united conclusion the common people had no right to speak against. Same as in europe. they failed in this in america however. They were all evolutionists and anti Christian anti creationists. The same crowd who used the scopes trial to advance school control on these subjects. They were probably socialists and worst. Many or most. They show how a elite tries to lead the more educated classes to lead the common people. This is the sin of Darwin. not his fault about these things but about insisting educated people must agree with evolution to be smart. If they did it today would we be any stronger in resistance.??Robert Byers
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
A few notes:
The holocaust before the holocaust - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa2_1Xb5A7M The Nazi Holocaust is seen by many as a gruesome but aberrant event in history. But 60 years earlier the Darwinian idea that some humans are not fully human resulted in horrifying brutality perpetrated upon the Herero people in South-West Africa. The Biology of the Second Reich: Social Darwinism and the Origins of World War 1 - video 14 minutes long (with Richard Weikart) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n900e80R30 The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. - Arthur Keith National Socialism is nothing but applied biology. - Rudolph Hess The Role Of Darwinism In Nazi Racial Thought - Richard Weikart - October 2013 Excerpt: The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology. http://www.csustan.edu/history/faculty/weikart/darwinism-in-nazi-racial-thought.pdf Hitler’s core frame of thought, from Mein Kampf, Bk I, Ch XI: “Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice... In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bobby-jindal-gives-it-back-on-science-denial/#comment-515115 Hitler's debt to America - 2004 Excerpt: Germany had certainly developed its own body of eugenic knowledge and library of publications. Yet German readers still closely followed American eugenic accomplishments as the model: biological courts, forced sterilisation, detention for the socially inadequate, debates on euthanasia. As America's elite were describing the socially worthless and the ancestrally unfit as "bacteria," "vermin," "mongrels" and "subhuman", a superior race of Nordics was increasingly seen as the answer to the globe's eugenic problems. US laws, eugenic investigations and ideology became blueprints for Germany's rising tide of race biologists and race-based hatemongers. http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/06/race.usa The Cultural Impact of Darwinian Evolution - John West, PhD - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFh4whzh_NU The Moral Impact Of Darwinism On Society - Dr. Phil Fernandes - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcQfwICe2Og Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin's Latest Biographer -- and a Pretty Devastating One - David Klinghoffer - October 14, 2012 Excerpt: "Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief," were students of Darwin, ,,, Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection "to its logical conclusion." "Leading Communists," moreover, "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power." Even Stalin,, "had Darwin's 'struggle' and 'survival of the fittest' in mind" when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,, ,,the "emotional stew" Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century's genocides.,,, No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin "for millions of deaths." But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin's theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences -- well, that's obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein). There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/historian_paul_065281.html The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here's what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government: “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Matthew 7:15-19 "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are savage wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
bornagain77
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
What does this have to do with Intelligent Design? Is it an argument in favor of ID?Larry Moran
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT
Rec @ 2 "At the same time, churches had eugenicists as an official position of power" Do you have links to this? CheersCross
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
REC:
Academics were quite divided . . .
Either you know this to be false in which case you are damned liar or you don't know it to be false, in which case you are astonishingly ignorant. REC, how can you learn from history if you deny it? Do you really expect anyone to believe that 3/4 of the states passed eugenics laws based on a minority scientific view? Do you really believe the Supreme Court of the United States endorsed the eugenics program over the objections of a majority of scientists? If it makes you feel better to wallow in vapid revisionism, go ahead. Don't expect the rest of us to wallow with you. On second thought, by "quite divided" you might mean that even at the height of the madness there remained a sane remnant. Who could doubt that that is true. In fact, that observation validates the point of the post. The same is true today, and policy makers should not lick the boots of scientists pushing "consensus science" because history has shown that consensus science can be dead wrong.Barry Arrington
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
05:56 PM
5
05
56
PM
PDT
Maybe a question we should ask is: How on earth did the government come to decide that it was in charge of the development of the human race? What if judges had just said, claims about who should or should not have children are not part of our business? The learned jurists' business, if I understand correctly, is with criminal charges and civil claims brought before the courts. If someone happens to exist that some other persons think should not exist, how is that a legal issue anyway? Is there a law that governs that?News
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
Some famous (then and now) geneticists opposed eugenics. Academics were quite divided, and historians of science often describe a minority of (influential) scientists misusing genetics towards their own economic and racist goals. The critiques were many, but the primary unifying argument against eugenics was that the poor 'genes' eugenicists wanted to purge were not clearly defined, were likely not due to single genes, and couldn't be distinguished from environmental effects. The claims of eugenicists exceeded the biological science. So the science deniers would include Thomas Hunt Morgan, H.J. Muller, Punnet--who anyone who has had a genetics or developmental biology class would instantly recognize. At the same time, churches had eugenicists as an official position of power. So, if your attempt is to use this as an analogy for the ID/creation vs. evolution debate today, I think you've failed.REC
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
05:03 PM
5
05
03
PM
PDT
Yeah, and if your great grandfather argued that eugenics was wrong, Larry Moran's great grandfather would have called him an "IDiot" and said "Buy a beginner's book on the subject because you don't understand!" ;-) ~SeanKaz
May 19, 2015
May
05
May
19
19
2015
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply