[_ Old Earth _] social darwinism

[Evointrinsic]

Evo. I know that. I just said that the toe makes eugenics and such more palatable, because someone could just say "Killing humans? No, we are doing what nature wants us to do. Have not you heard of the theory of evolution?" I know this happens... its in Thatcher's book (read it)

Only to people who have completely misunderstood Evolution. Otherwise the statement "toe makes eugenics and such more palatable" false.

Evolution doesn't make it Palatable, or even seem palatable, people make the (wrong) assumption that it does.

 

[Pard]

Evo. I know that. I just said that the toe makes eugenics and such more palatable, because someone could just say "Killing humans? No, we are doing what nature wants us to do. Have not you heard of the theory of evolution?" I know this happens... its in Thatcher's book (read it)

Only to people who have completely misunderstood Evolution. Otherwise the statement "toe makes eugenics and such more palatable" false.

Evolution doesn't make it Palatable, or even seem palatable, people make the (wrong) assumption that it does.

Have to agree that people make the wrong assumption. Eugenics is never a palatable topic, no matter which form it may come in.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Back to the Original posts question though... I do not know of anyone that even remotely believes Social Darwinism.

however, I have heard creationists claim that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is racist and all that. That's about the extent of it though.

 

[Pard]

Back to the Original posts question though... I do not know of anyone that even remotely believes Social Darwinism.

The current science czar in the white house advocated for the use of sterilants in water supplies... That is a form of social darwinism, as he was referring to using them in urban and ghetto water supplies, and most urban and ghetto inhabitants are not naturally selected by social darwinism terms!

One could say, as I believe, that PP is a social darwinian institute that advocates infanticide, which is a form of eugenics. Jason has already spoken on its purpose to eliminate race, and this of course the fact that most abortions from PP are on children who would have been born into poverty. And, eugenics as applied to poverty is a social darwin idea.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwinian evolution legitimises things like abortion and euthanasia.

Nope. In fact, Darwin pointed out:
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."

Darwin, "The Descent of Man" (1871), p.168.

Survival of the fittest, and if there’s no God

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence from The Origin of Species

If you actually read some of the literature, you might not be continually surprised about the theory.

Ya, they don’t really have a say, but we know what we’re doing after all there’s no God and Darwin would approve!

Turns out, he didn't. And was very clear about it. People who think they hate Darwin hate a cartoon drawn by creationists who either don't have any idea what Darwin and his theory are about, or are betting that you don't.

This is all a direct result of social Darwinism whether you like it or not.

See above. Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that such programs were not only morally indefensible, they are scientifically impractical. Do yourself a favor. Learn about it.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Back to the Original posts question though... I do not know of anyone that even remotely believes Social Darwinism.

The current science czar in the white house advocated for the use of sterilants in water supplies... That is a form of social darwinism, as he was referring to using them in urban and ghetto water supplies, and most urban and ghetto inhabitants are not naturally selected by social darwinism terms!

Would you be able to give the source of this information?


Also, i'm not saying no one does, i'm saying that I, personally, don't know of anyone that promotes Social Darwinism.

 

[Pard]

Barb, you really didn't get what I was saying... Again, you were redundant in simply reiterating my words.

I never once said that Evolution created Social-Darwinism, or that Evolution or Darwin were for social-darwinism. I stated that Social-darwinism uses evolution in an attempt to legitimize their actions.

Please, try to read my posts carefully.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Barb, you really didn't get what I was saying... Again, you were redundant in simply reiterating my words.

I never once said that Evolution created Social-Darwinism, or that Evolution or Darwin were for social-darwinism. I stated that Social-darwinism uses evolution in an attempt to legitimize their actions.

Please, try to read my posts carefully.

Was that supposed to be directed to me or barb?

 

[jasoncran]

Back to the Original posts question though... I do not know of anyone that even remotely believes Social Darwinism.

The current science czar in the white house advocated for the use of sterilants in water supplies... That is a form of social darwinism, as he was referring to using them in urban and ghetto water supplies, and most urban and ghetto inhabitants are not naturally selected by social darwinism terms!

Would you be able to give the source of this information?


Also, i'm not saying no one does, i'm saying that I, personally, don't know of anyone that promotes Social Darwinism.

from a liberal paper the washington times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... e-adviser/

 

[Evointrinsic]

Interesting... I agree! it should be done!


Lol just kidding No, that's pretty sick. Fortunately the majority of scientists wouldn't do this or even suggest it. I'm not quite sure how he got up to be a presidents science adviser?

 

[jasoncran]

Interesting... I agree! it should be done!


Lol just kidding No, that's pretty sick. Fortunately the majority of scientists wouldn't do this or even suggest it. I'm not quite sure how he got up to be a presidents science adviser?

yes, but the scary thought is how radical some are! but that stuff(ecoradicalism) is for another thread as we would be way off (though its relates) topic.

 

[Barbarian]

Have I read any of Darwin's books? To a minor extent, I have flipped through them, nothing more.

This is what they mean by "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As you see, Darwinism is diametrically opposed to social Dawinism.

And yes, I know what social darwinism is, and that it isn't in any direct relations to the man known as Darwin, though I sometimes wonder how he would react to the idea

He referred to it as an "overwhelming evil."

I'd have to agree with Bronze, though. It seems to me that toe helps make such actions like eugenics seem more tolerable. (Not saying evolutionary scientists want this, just stating an apparent connection)

Darwin opposed it on ethical grounds. Evolutionary theory makes it clear that classical eugenics won't work. I don't see how anyone can infer that it makes eugenics more tolerable.

If you can chalk up everything to evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection, (as evolution does)

That's another misconception. Evolution is only about the way populations of organisms change.

than one could make the argument that man has stopped nature from taking its course, and thus we should help it continue along its natural course by eliminating the weaker among us.

As you just learned, that's not the case. First, scientists don't think evolution is a good thing. They just accept the evidence. Second, Darwin himself objected to that idea on moral and ethical grounds. Third, evolutionary theory makes it clear that eugenics won't work.

Again, just saying evolution helps make such ideas of social darwinism and eugenics more tolerable by people (though who would be able to tolerate eugenics? besides Hitler,

Reginald Punnett (Darwinian of Punnett Square fame) showed that the National Socialist racial theories were bunk.

Stalin

Stalin outlawed Darwinism. (although he did implement much of the eugenics program)

Thatcher was a bit of a crackpot, but I wouldn't put her in the same class with the other two.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Evo

Bronzesnake wrote; First of all were you under the incorrect impression that I was refuting Darwinian evolution in this post?

Hmm, let's see what the very first words are that you said

"Darwinian evolution legitimises things like abortion and euthanasia."

The only time in your post that you ever brought up "this is Social Darwinism" is the very last sentence. Otherwise you make it seem as if Darwin's theory of evolution legitimizes (insert ridiculous claims here).

Again, how can you misconstrue my post as a refutation of Darwinian evolution?
You know I do not ascribe to Darwinian evolution, but I am not actually attempting to refute it in this post.
I am saying abortion, euthanasia etc are the result of following Darwinian evolution to its logical conclusion. Darwinian evolution would have us believe we are all animals, and they shoot horses right?
Bronzesnake wrote: Don’t you realise that social Darwinism comes from Darwinian evolution?

Yes, Just as Satanism derives from your religion. But guess what! Do they mean the same thing? no! do they even represent roughly the same views? absolutely not! Same goes for Social Darwinism and Darwin's Theory Of Evolution.
Your logic is outstandingly fallacious.

Let’s see...I wonder who stated this...

Social Darwinism is very loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Social Darwinism is a pejorative term for certain, but as you have admitted it is loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection! Thus the name Social “Darwinismâ€!!!

I can assure you that eugenics plays no role in The Theory Of Evolution. Social darwinism, yes, but Evolution is just a description. It doesn't focus on humanity or social/economic structure.

How exactly can you assure any of that?
Look, this is not rocket science here.
I’ll repeat myself so maybe it will register.
Darwinian evolution says we are nothing but animals, when animals get ill they are shot. Also, animals are bred and cross bred to improve the breed right? Well, Darwinian evolution says we are animals, so as the Nazis showed us, bredding and cross breeding animals and humans was acceptable because humans are in fact animals! Let's be consistant here Evo. You can't have it both ways. You believe we are animals.
So, following Darwinian evolution to its logical conclusion, there is nothing morally wrong with abortion and euthanasia or eugenics.

We know abortion and euthanasia are happening all over the world right?
Do you actually believe these are legitimized by any bible believing Christians? No!
Of course they aren’t!

It’s the evolutionists who have no problem wrenching a living human out of a place that is supposed to be calm and safe, by the head.
It’s evolutionists who foolishly try and convince themselves that a human fetus is not a human being.
It’s evolutionists who have no problem shoving a sharp metal object into a baby’s head to scramble its brains!
It’s evolutionists who have no problem starving a helpless woman to death who has no way of screaming out for help!

I wonder if you could personally jam that cold steel prod into an innocent baby’s skull and twist your wrists and hands around until its brain is jelly. Then wrench the lifeless body out from its mother’s womb. Then toss it into a garbage bin.
Could you do this Evo?
Its murder and there is coming a day when all who live by this evil morality will have to answer for it Evo.

Once you are involved in planning, or have knowledge of a murder and become an accomplice, you are guilty. You don’t get off the hook just because you don’t have your finger on the trigger my friend.
If I were you I’d get down on my belly and beg God to forgive you, and ask Jesus to come into your life and remove all this poisonous evil propaganda from your database before it’s too late.

The scriptures tell us that all who ascribe to such things as abortion and euthanasia will suffer the following fate...
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

It is my honest prayer that you will have a miraculous meeting with Jesus Evo, and that you will accept the truth and be washed of all yuor sins as I have amen.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Evointrinsic]

Hello Evo

Bronzesnake wrote; First of all were you under the incorrect impression that I was refuting Darwinian evolution in this post?

Hmm, let's see what the very first words are that you said

"Darwinian evolution legitimises things like abortion and euthanasia."

The only time in your post that you ever brought up "this is Social Darwinism" is the very last sentence. Otherwise you make it seem as if Darwin's theory of evolution legitimizes (insert ridiculous claims here).

Again, how can you misconstrue my post as a refutation of Darwinian evolution?
You know I do not ascribe to Darwinian evolution, but I am not actually attempting to refute it in this post.
I am saying abortion, euthanasia etc are the result of following Darwinian evolution to its logical conclusion. Darwinian evolution would have us believe we are all animals, and they shoot horses right?

My mistake, For some reason I was thinking about misinterpretation rather than refuting.

Bronzesnake wrote: Don’t you realise that social Darwinism comes from Darwinian evolution?

Yes, Just as Satanism derives from your religion. But guess what! Do they mean the same thing? no! do they even represent roughly the same views? absolutely not! Same goes for Social Darwinism and Darwin's Theory Of Evolution.
Your logic is outstandingly fallacious.

Let’s see...I wonder who stated this...
[quote:30c1mt28]Social Darwinism is very loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Social Darwinism is a pejorative term for certain, but as you have admitted it is loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection! Thus the name Social “Darwinismâ€!!![/quote:30c1mt28]

Yes, just as Christianity and Satanism are the same thing. *sarcasm* . By very loosely, it means that the only connection is the misinterpretation of what natural selection is. What makes you come to the conclusion that "loosely based" is "the same as"?

I can assure you that eugenics plays no role in The Theory Of Evolution. Social darwinism, yes, but Evolution is just a description. It doesn't focus on humanity or social/economic structure.

How exactly can you assure any of that?
Look, this is not rocket science here.
I’ll repeat myself so maybe it will register.
Darwinian evolution says we are nothing but animals, when animals get ill they are shot. Also, animals are bred and cross bred to improve the breed right? Well, Darwinian evolution says we are animals, so as the Nazis showed us, bredding and cross breeding animals and humans was acceptable because humans are in fact animals! Let's be consistant here Evo. You can't have it both ways. You believe we are animals.
So, following Darwinian evolution to its logical conclusion, there is nothing morally wrong with abortion and euthanasia or eugenics.

And this is why everyone who knows anything about evolution always seems to tell you that you don't know how evolution works. What you are describing isn't natural selection at all, that's selective breeding, there is a HUGE difference. In fact, Darwin made two separate chapters of his book on the theory of evolution that show the differences and how they are most definitely not the same. Your lack of understanding of the theory is why you make such ridiculous claims like this and how you continue to misunderstand anything we are saying if it includes mutations, genetics, natural selection or evolution as a whole. Read the book (On the Origin of Species), then come back here and discuss it.

The rest of your post has nothing to do with this topic at all and is all questions and claims about abortion, try to stay on topic...

 

[jasoncran]

the question of the day and it relates is how much darwin has influenced philosophy, after my bjj time i will post about the columnists that gives advice based on evolution.

 

[Pard]

Well, Barb. you assertion that I called Darwin a pro-eugenics man and then your avid defense of something I never said got me thinking, and I did some research... This is just the icing on the cake... Thank you for tipping me off to who this Darwin guy really was...

An excerpt from Darwin's "The Descent of Man"

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised 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 civilised 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 any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

More over, Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was very big into eugenics, and he even coined the word "eugenics".

And more from his Descent book:

"[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."

 

[jasoncran]

good one, pard please post that source of that .

 

[Pard]

good one, pard please post that source of that .

First quote is from page 168 of volume 1 of "The Descent of Man" and the second quote is from page 201 of the same book. I found these citations here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/su ... 01682.html

 

[Bronzesnake]

Nice work Pard.
I can't understand how evolutionists try to distance themselves from their own religious doctrine.
I suspect it will be fairly quiet here until some convoluted refutations can be dreamed up!

Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Well, Barb. you assertion that I called Darwin a pro-eugenics man and then your avid defense of something I never said got me thinking, and I did some research... This is just the icing on the cake... Thank you for tipping me off to who this Darwin guy really was...

An excerpt from Darwin's "The Descent of Man"

(And a perfect example of the way creationists hide the truth by selective quote-mining)

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised 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 civilised 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 any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

And now the part you deleted...

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.

You see, I've read it, and I know what creationists do with editing. Darwin sees competition between races as something to be deplored, but he sees little hope of stopping it, even as he sees eugenics as evil. I suspect you didn't actually delete it yourself, but were gulled by others perhaps less honest than Christians should be. Whoever did it should be ashamed of themselves, but I've learned by hard experience, that they believe anything can be justified if they think it might advance their new doctrine.

More over, Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was very big into eugenics, and he even coined the word "eugenics".

Attempt at guilt by association noted. It's another ploy creationists use.

"[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races."

He believed it would happen, and decried it. In The Voyage of the Beagle, he bluntly indicts Europeans for their treatment of primitive races, and declares slavery to be an abomination.

Quote-mining is not as clever a trick as it might seem.