Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

Pete Harcoff · Oct 30, 2007

MandM said:
Instead, people don't look at anything, and yet they feel free to post whatever nonsense comes into their head on the topic without even looking at the subject matter

Maybe because we've heard it all before and we know what a bunch of bull it is?

Y'know, just maybe...

MSBS · Oct 30, 2007

MandM said:
NO, the people of the U.S.S.R. did not worship Stalin like he was a god.

They were hardcore atheists, and evolution was one of the foundation stones of their education system.

Please read about Lysenkoism, which was the USSR's official belief about genetics, inheritance, and evolution. It should be easy to note that this is not Darwinism, it is an alternate, albeit pseudo-scientific, theory.

It's an interesting case study of what happens when science is over-ridden by a society because it conflicts with their belief system. It could definitely be used as a cautionary tale of what can happen when irrational views supersede rational ones. Lysenkoism surely has more in common with creationism than it does with the modern theory of evolution. Both are based on belief systems rather than scientific inquiry, and both are demonstrably inaccurate.

The debacle of Lysenkoism led to the persecution and execution of scientists,the crippling of Soviet and Chinese communist agriculture, and untold suffering from famine when Lysenko's ideas were put into practice. And Darwin had nothing to do with it.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 30, 2007

MSBS said:
And Darwin had nothing to do with it.

Yeah, but why let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory?

FishFace · Oct 30, 2007

MandM said:
No I am not a troll.

Yes, this evidence is too much for you to handle so you will likely run away.

It is time to face the TRUTH.

Evolution can mean two things, biologically speaking. The fact that allele frequency changes over time or the theory (and fact) that we all derive from a common ancestor.

This does not make any normative statements of any kind. I.E. you cannot go from saying "the fittest procreate more" to saying "the fittest OUGHT to procreate more." That is the is/ought fallacy, well known in ethical philosophy.

Plus, EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE then evolution STILL happened. Of course, there are no moral theories that validly derive from evolution, but if there were, then that has precisely NO bearing on the truth of it.

Mallon · Oct 30, 2007

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html:

Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:

George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,
The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became a blank.
In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).

During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,
that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).

The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.

Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).

Oops.

Lucretius · Oct 30, 2007

See naturalistic fallacy, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem]is-ought problem[/url].

Loudmouth · Oct 30, 2007

Post deleted. MSBS said it much better than I.

NailsII · Oct 30, 2007

MandM said:
Darwins cousin Francis Galton however, went further. He introduced the idea of good and bad genes- respectively eugenic V digenic; the idea of good births or eugenics had arrived.

There is no such concept as 'good' and 'bad' genes; genes are either neutral, confer a survival advantage or a disadvantage in relation to their environent (which is not static and is prone to change).
to assume otherwise is just plain stupidity.

Locked · Oct 30, 2007

Split Rock said:
I am through with you MandM.

You are a Troll.

Bye Bye *ignore*

Why do you ignore MandM? I thought you were the one who came on this topic. I don't see how he's a troll. He's a human being. So I'm left with the 2 conclusions: You love to ignore people , or this is a good explanation so much that it sues Darwinism. Oh don't forget to ignore me.

gamespotter10 · Oct 30, 2007

Locked said:
Why do you ignore MandM? I thought you were the one who came on this topic. I don't see how he's a troll. He's a human being. So I'm left with the 2 conclusions: You love to ignore people , or this is a good explanation so much that it sues Darwinism. Oh don't forget to ignore me.

evolution =/= darwinism

Split Rock · Oct 30, 2007

RichardT said:
I don't think he's a troll. By that standard, did you ignore me as well?

To answer your question, no I have not put you on *ignore*. I was not under the impression that you were a troll. Do you consider your posts to be of the same standard as MandM's? If so, you are underrating yourself.

kiwimac · Oct 30, 2007

There is no necessary equation that links evolutionary theory with eugenics. Some peope have defined it that way but it is not a given.

Elduran · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
For 18 years old you are sorely lacking in knowledge, and the degree to which you have been brainwashed actuallys stuns me.

I don't even know where to start.

Let's start with this:

NO, the people of the U.S.S.R. did not worship Stalin like he was a god.

They were hardcore atheists, and evolution was one of the foundation stones of their education system.

They all ate breakfast too. Maybe we should ban breakfast in case it was the REAL cause of their atheism??

Cherry picking and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies won't get you too far here. How about we look at all the other countries that exist now without major religions and which teach evolution? Hmmm, doesn't seem to be a cause. Nice try though.

ChordatesLegacy · Oct 31, 2007

Eugenics as always gone on, even during times of religious dogma. For centauries sick and deformed children were rapped warm and left to die, more of necessity than anything else, it was considered a waste of time and resources to raise a child that would be a burden on its family for life.

Even today eugenics is live and well, particularly in China and India where daughters are seen as a life time burden and expensive to raise. Millions of babies are aborted or left to die after birth purely on their gender.

This as far more to do will economics that evolution, or in many cased its religious based because of women (or girls) being seen as less worth than men.

TheGnome · Oct 31, 2007

Then what does it say about the Jews of the old testament who wiped out nearby pagans for the sole reason that they weren't Jews? Not only that, but they kept the virgin women as sex slaves.

It's all there written in your Bible. Evolution is a biological phenomenon that has nothing to do with eugenics. You can't have artificial selection on your own species because it's impossible to judge who is better and who is worse. In fact, eugenics is actually based off of artificial selection, not the theory of evolution. Artificial selection has been around far longer than the theory of evolution, as it was practiced by farmers. Darwin used artificial selection to support his theory. Even if evolution wasn't true, and it is, one could still practice eugenics.

Anyway, one study that blew the idea of eugenics out of the water were conducted by John Paul Scott and John L. Fuller. A book of theirs, Genetics and the Social Behavior of the Dog, showed that you cannot create a super dog with all of the best abilities. The best you can do is zone on a particular trait and enhance it, while other traits weaken, or you can create a moderate dog that has an average ability of all traits.

MandM · Oct 31, 2007

I appreciate those who have made points regarding the difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism.

While in theory there may be a difference, in reality they seem to always go together hand in hand. Wherever Darwinism shows up, Social Darwinism is sure to follow.

Darwin himself and his family were massively into "social Darwinism".......just watch the film in the original post.

As for those on this thread who question whether the New World Order exists:

I don't even know what to say. I find it hard to believe that anyone is still so ignorant.

Every single one of the "top tier" candidates for both parties is a member of an organization that is directly tied to the New World Order, and I would bet most of the atheists here can't even name that organization.

It is the same organization that every secretary of state since the 50s has belonged to. If you can't name the organization, then don't even think that you even know the first thing about what is really going on in the world.

RaveyDavey · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
If you can't name the organization, then don't even think that you even know the first thing about what is really going on in the world.

A Church?

MandM · Oct 31, 2007

RaveyDavey said:
A Church?

No it is not a church.

You obviously do not know.

Get educated.

cerad · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
No it is not a church.

You obviously do not know.

Get educated.

I know. It's Wal-Mart. Right?

Atheuz · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
No it is not a church.

You obviously do not know.

Get educated.

Being a conspiracy nutcase who thinks the Illuminati wants to take over ze world does not mean you're educated.

Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Life-long student of biological science

Member

Veteran

Conflation of Blathers

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Disruptive influence

Senior Member

Evil Atheist Conspiracy PR Guy

MandM

Guest

Junior Member

MandM

Guest

Zebra Fan

It's comforting to know that this isn't a test

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency