I have a question or two about evolutionist ideology

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Richard Dawkins, the zoo keeper high priest proselytizer for atheistic materialism, supports human breeding programs. This is what Dawkins wrote in "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" in Scotland's Sunday Herald.

"I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?"

www.sundayherald.com...

So let's breed a super race of Darwinists while we're at it. We can mix Dawkins' DNA with Christopher Hitchen's and birth an alcoholic monkey cage cleaner. The answer to such poisonous ideas is every human being has equal moral value because they are alive. "Inalienable rights endowed by our creator" is the philosophy of the USA. The way people justify eugenics is to dehumanize the subjects. Christianity does not allow for this. Darwinism does. Without a God the default atheist position is that rights are defined by the opinions of men. Hence men can take them.





[edit on 6/2/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Yes and not long ago on these very boards we anticipated just such a disparity in the morality of Atheists who back then chimed in a cute little slogan saying they would do right merely because doing right is the right thing to do. Now we see that the right thing to do is whatever they decide it is at the time or which ever the direction of the political winds blowing.

It's just existentialism or whatever you think is right IS right.

what we think as a society is a mixed bag of who knows what

a real mess on our hands

thats what.

- Con

Originally posted by vox2442

Bigwhammy -

I'm not going to bother quoting your post, because at this point it looks like you've changed it substantially at least 4 times now - every time I think about it, and come back to reply, you've edited it again. A little less knee jerk, perhaps?

I'll just point out that the USA was pretty much THE leader in the Eugenics movement in the 1920s, when it emerged, and that forced - or coerced - sterilizations continued well into the 1960s. Eugenics as an official government policy was not born in Hitler's Germany - it's rooted in the USA.

Who cares where it's rooted, all you are saying is that it is and seems to be a popular idea in more than one country. What makes it deplorable isn't where it started but what GERMANY did with it.

It was the influence Darwinian evolution has on many to this day and Dawkins seems to agree with but I expect Godless people to behave and think like Godless people.

No surprises there.

- Con

reply to post by sacerd


You present very good questions here. Richard Dawkins has an excellent book called "The Selfish Gene" that would offer you some great info. As for "survival of the fittest" and natural selection, we can't necessarily extend those ideals to the human species. We have evolved to possess a consciousness, humanism, and the desire to keep our species alive. It IS an evolutionary trait that we don't possess the drive to kill other humans, even if they're genetic make-up isn't ideal. However, that said - the process of "survival of the fittest" takes place every moment. Without being consciously aware, we choose "mates" based on traits that we want our offspring to carry. The fact that we have adrenaline and a sympathetic nervous system is actually a genetic trait that evolved because we had to run from tigers and catch mammoths. However, we no longer need that adrenaline rush for survival purposes (at least not on a daily basis), yet our brain doesn't know that yet. Evolution takes a very, VERY long time. Eventually, certain diseases (mental, physical or otherwise) that are hereditary will be extinct simply because the carriers are not creating offspring. Thank you for your questions. While I don't have all the answers I hope I've enlightened you a bit.

I just realized that someone else recommended a Richard Dawkins book to you...I guess he's the go-to man for these questions! Anyway...sorry about that - I haven't read the other book, but I'm sure it is excellent as well.

reply to post by sacerd

Hello there, sacerd. I have only read your OP in the thread so far. Since you're asking for answers to specific questions, I'll take the liberty of providing some right away, before reading further to see what others have written.

Let's begin at the beginning, shall we?

I have a question about evolutionist ideology.

Evolution is not a philosophy or a belief system. It is a scientific theory. Scientific theories do not have ideologies attached to them.

However, nonscientists may take a scientific discovery or theory and use it to support their own ideologies or belief systems. Is this what you mean by 'evolutionist ideology'? Well, it is important to make the distinction between the scientific theory of evolution -- which has no ideological component -- and what has been added on after the fact by people who may not be very interested in the science but just want something to support what they want to believe. Science cannot be blamed for what such people do. Science just lays out its findings; it's up to people to make what they will out of them.

But I'll answer your questions, if you like, from a slightly different perspective. I'll try to explain what light, if any, modern evolutionary theory casts on the issues you're curious about.

1.) Do the Darwinist on this site, tend to also favor the ideas of social Darwinism as well? If not why?

First, a quick aside: 'Darwinist' is a derogatory term used by anti-evolutionists to describe those who accept Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. The use of the terminal syllable '-ist' is meant to imply that such acceptance is ideological or religious. This is rather slanderous.

A more polite word to use would be 'Darwinian'.

Anyway, to answer the question: 'Social Darwinism' is based on a misunderstanding of how natural selection works. When we speak of the 'survival of the fittest', we do not necessarily mean the strongest, the healthiest, the most aggressive or the horniest; we mean the organism that is best suited to thrive in the particular ecological niche it occupies. Selective fitness involves such factors as timidity (a brave house mouse wouldn't live very long, would it?), camouflage, altruism, favour-trading, the ability to give and receive affection and (as every human knows) empathy and self-control. Social Darwinism implies a laissez-faire, ruthlessly competitive society in which the weak or the less gifted are left to fall by the wayside or actively put down. Evolutionary theory shows us that such a system is not natural to us and would actually reduce the selective fitness of those who practised it. Human beings are social animals; we have evolved to live by cooperation as well as competition. The political ideology called Social Darwinism does not reflect the neoDarwinian synthesis -- that is to say, modern evolutionary theory. It is an ideology based on pseudoscience.

2.) Do the Darwinists or evolutionist on this site tend to favor charity of the physically or mentally disabled? If so why?

I most certainly do. Why? For the same reasons any decent person would.

Evolution works fine without human meddling. One might wish to discourage people with serious heritable disorders from having children -- for the sake of the children -- but in the end, it's up to every individual whether they're going to have a child or not.

3.) Do the Darwinist or evolutionist on this site tend to favor eugenics? if not why?

I do not. Every animal breeder knows how breeding for some desirable characteristics usually brings out certain undesirable ones as well -- pure-bred German Shepherds, for example, often have weak hips and hind legs. Many, if not all genes have multiple expression. You could be throwing good stuff out along with the stuff you don't want. The more one knows about genetics and natural selection, the less likely one is to be a promoter of eugenics.

And even if we could have the good without the bad, who is to decide what's good?

4.) Do the Darwinist or evolutionist on this site tend to favor forced sterilization or euthanasia, of the less fit specimens of the human race either mentally or physically? If not why?

Of course not. Do you think people who believe in evolution are Nazis?

If you have been following my explanation thus far, you will not require me to explain why Darwinians don't favour these things.

Remember: we are the creatures of natural selection, but we are not its slaves. Nature is blind and ruthless; we knew that long before Darwin developed his theory. But though we are a part of nature, we are not blind, and there is no call for us to be ruthless. To return to where I started: Darwinian evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory. It has no ideological implications except those people choose to read into it. It does not demand, or even recommend, that we turn ourselves into monsters in its honour.

I hope you find these answers enlightening.

1. No.
2. Yes. They are still people, despite whatever disabilities they may have, and they should be helped. WHy? 'Cause there but for the grace of God.
3. No. Why? Logically speaking it makes sense. Weed out the people weak towards disease and genetically inclined towrads impairments. I'm against it for a few reasons. One is ti would be corrupted. SOmeone would make it based on their philosophy. It'd end up bringing about the caste system again, in one form or another.
Like I said before, there but for the grace of God. It would affect people I know, friends, family, ect. I couldn't support something like that.
4. A particularly emphatic NO. Aside from my quote, it would definetly be abused and mishandled. Humanity would suffer genetically, possibly, and individuals would most definetly suffer at points, but overall that mentality would impair who we are.

Originally posted by sacerd
I have a question about evolutionist ideology, and this is NOT an attack or any such thing.
To those who espouse the theory of evolution and or natural selection could you please answer a few questions?

1.) Do the Darwinist on this site, tend to also favor the ideas of social Darwinism as well? If not why?

2.) Do the Darwinists or evolutionist on this site tend to favor charity of the physically or mentally disabled? If so why?

3.) Do the Darwinist or evolutionist on this site tend to favor eugenics? if not why?

4.) Do the Darwinist or evolutionist on this site tend to favor forced sterilization or euthanasia, of the less fit specimens of the human race either mentally or physically? If not why?

1) I think social darwinism is so apparent you'd have to shut yourself in a closet with your fingers in your ears going "NAH AH NA NAH AH!!" in order to over look it. Its like the "Darwin awards", if you're going to engage in doing stupid things, you might end up not getting "selected", you chance goes up the more stupid things you tend to do.

Questions 2-4 are basically the same so I'll answer it all as such.
Eugenics is a lot like communism. It looks good on paper, but pairing off people based on good qualities on a list on a desk turns out to be quite different than putting it into practice using euthanasia of those that don't make the list.

Like communism, you have the best of intentions, you want to further the development of the human race and in theory you would be, of course removing yourself emotionally from the situation.

Communism doesn't work because in practice it turns out that everyone's greed and desire to rise above what they currently have, overrides the common good of the community they're apart of, in effect being detrimental to the community.

Eugenics doesn't work because in practice you have to let a little part of your humanity die, you have to block out the fact that other people are suffering for the "advance" of humanity. In fact humanity does not advance, I would argue that humanity would be worse off having exterminated part of itself for its own selfish desires.

In both situations, the outcome negatively overpowers it's perceived benefit to society.

Hows that?

i have to disagree with what you said that "god gave people love, self sacrifice, etc, etc" Just look at a person raised in the wild and see how much love or self sacrifice he has. These are products of evolution and are TAUGHT from parents to children, and not even always that. There are plenty people lacking these virtues...did god just not like them when they were born? A baby is a greedy grasping needy ball of id. All greater human values are Taught to the child, they are by no means intrinsic of us being human. The only assumption we can make based on this, is that someperson developed these virtues at some point during our evolution, but i will point this out. Humans arent the only beings with these virtues of love and affection, sharing, kindness, loyalty and.... dare i say altruism?? Dolphins have been known to save humans for no reason, and also demonstrate great amounts of affection and sharing, and even elephants demonstrate great careing and nurturing among their own, and even mourn and love their lost ones (even their human friends) years after seperation. Or maybe god just loves dolphins and elephants more than other animals too.

reply to post by pexx421


I have to disagree, people with similar backgrounds can turn out very differently. Very good people can come from very bad families, and very bad ones from very good families.
Some people just end up being decent, others are definetly taught it, and you generally can notice a difference in the two.
I can't say if it's a difference in Chemistry or spirit though.

awww how cute! everyone is so P.C.

It's really freakin easy to give the mainstream/generally accepted answer. But the hell with that. Try thinking for yourself for a change. If you're a man and your posting this fluffy BS; Grow a pair. If you're a woman; Prove that you don't need em ;-)

You know damned well that if your daughter was genetically deformed or deficient mentally or physically, you would not want her to have children.

I'm not a Darwinist; but i'm not sick enough to say that retarded or genetically handicap people should have kids. To knowingly and willingly subject a newborn child to the horrors of growing up with a deficiency of any kind is not only selfish, but?

retarded

call me a monster all you want. But i think it's cruel to bring someone into this world if you know they will more than likely suffer through every waking minute of it.

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Who cares where it's rooted, all you are saying is that it is and seems to be a popular idea in more than one country. What makes it deplorable isn't where it started but what GERMANY did with it.

It was the influence Darwinian evolution has on many to this day and Dawkins seems to agree with but I expect Godless people to behave and think like Godless people.

No surprises there.

- Con

I disagree. Forced sterilization, as was carried out for decades in the United States for a variety of reasons, is every bit as deplorable as what happened in Germany. Both were carried out for political reasons.

Darwin is not to blame - the processes at play in Eugenics programs of the last century are as old as the hills - good Christian farmers have been practicing selective breeding since the earth was flat. One does not need to be pro- or anti- evolution to be able to observe these processes at work, just ask any farmer. If you want to blame anyone, blame Mendel - Eugenics reflects his work far more than anyone else. Or blame the farmers that have known this stuff all along.

And that's what Dawkins is getting at. We have accepted these forms of Eugenics in agriculture for millenia. Likewise, we still practice cultural forms of Eugenics - sperm and egg donors offer the ability to play a closer role in selecting offspring. Blood tests before marriage are common cultural practice in many places to determine certain disease and genetic conditions that may be passed on to offspring. Birth control is often cited as well as a Eugenics program. All of these things are quite established, and quite accepted by the mainstream. Because of the negative ways that these ideas have been used in certain countries - Canada, the USA, Australia, and so forth, we have attached a stigma to the word - which was the point of the opinion piece in question.

Troll Time Already?

May we see more direct responses to the OP question, please,?

And after that, may we hear what sacerd has to say about the answers he has received, and anything else she or he might wish to tell us?

And could the people who are here simply to bash other people for their opinions kindly hold their fire for a couple more pages?

Thank you.

[edit on 2-6-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by JPhish


Not exactly everyone. I know it'fd happen to me and mine, so I can't support things like Eugencs. Sure, best for humanity's genetics, but damaged people are a small percentage of the population, and several have other ways of donating to humanity at large.

Originally posted by vox2442

I'll just point out that the USA was pretty much THE leader in the Eugenics movement in the 1920s, when it emerged, and that forced - or coerced - sterilizations continued well into the 1960s. Eugenics as an official government policy was not born in Hitler's Germany - it's rooted in the USA.

Your point? Back then they dehumanized African Americans and handicapped persons to do so as well. Dehumanized. Now that racism is under control the practice is unthinkable. Which is exactly my point.
It should be unthinkable.
But not too Darwinists...
like Dick.

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Bigwhammy]

rune spider, i never said good people cant come from bad parents or vice versa, my point is that humans as a race need to be taught the finer virtues, theyre not born in. They have found feral humans from time to time and they were vicious and wild, not loving and kind. Kindness and generosity are LEARNED not inherent. I never said they were learned necessarily from parents. You can have cruel parents and yet learn love and loyalty from your friends. But we have to generally see it first and understand it before we come to practice it. And there is rarely ever generosity or sharing without security.

I think that this line of questioning is incredibly loaded and not entirely honest in intent...but, I don't really care either way...


1.) I would think that the majority of people who believe in the 'theory' of of evolution, describing it as a 'theory' is only a scientific standard because in reality it has been observed, guided and replicated countless times, are probably not proponents of the theory of 'social Darwinism'. Social Darwinism has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary theory, it is merely a 18th-19th century idea that socio-economic elitists bastardised from Darwin's work in order to justify their own socio-economic superiority, remember the 18th through early-20th centuries were actually quite busy times in terms of revolution by the lower classes.



I, for one, do not believe in social Darwinism because I feel that it is a complete falsity. If one is to observe those that are successful in human society, they are, often, not examples of the strongest, smartest, or otherwise the 'best' of the species. Instead, often what one finds is that those who sit in the seats of privilege sit there because their predecessors sat in the same seats, or they have otherwise simply figured out a way to manipulate the system, and other people along the way, to get there. I'm not saying that we do not have some individuals who are great leaders who do not exhibit characteristics of being 'better'...but simply that the idea of 'survival of the fittest' in human society is woefully inefficient in explaining our sociocultural hierarchy.



2.) Charity for the disabled? If this question is to ask if 'we' think that society should help out individuals with special needs, my own personal answer would be, yes. I work for the Disability Services office of a University and I understand, and agree, that individuals who have special needs, IE disabilities, should be helped out, to an extent. I do, however, find it frustrating, as it has been mentioned previously, that individuals who exhibit exceptionally high levels of ability are often not rewarded or otherwise accommodated for their abilities, and often are not supported in a similar fashion. It seems to me that higher levels of intelligence or ability can also become a disability all in its own right. Society puts an inordinate amount of pressure on 'smart people' to be more independent and to simply get along on their own, not realising that they have needs too. As an individual at the top of the academic spectrum, I feel that my education was stifled because of a lack of support, in this respect, as well as a lack of challenge in my early years.

(to be continued)

(continuing)

3.) Questions 3 and 4 really are the same question, in a sense, aren't they? Eugenics is obviously a very divisive subject because it has a very complicated context and history. What first comes to mind when discussing eugenics is, most obviously, the experimentation done by, as well as the ideology held by, Nazi Germany, this included selective breeding to promote certain traits and the extermination of individuals with 'undesirable' traits. However, Eugenics is much more than that. Modern eugenics includes prenatal testing and screening, genetic counselling, birth control, in vitro, and genetic engineering...to simplify a response as for whether an someone is for or against eugenics...well, it is not a black or white issue, despite the efforts of those who want to make it so's efforts.



While I am not in favor of selective breeding and extermination as a means of "quality assurance," thankfully, we have come a long way since the 1940s, as far as technology goes. We do not have to create selective breeding programs and we do not need to exterminate those with 'inferior' genes, as was previously attempted...nor should we because such inhumane methods are just about as evil as evil can get, if I am allowed to make a moral judgement on those who have come before and most of which have long since passed on. I think that almost anyone would agree that the methods which were used by those previously attempting to improve the human species through their quests into eugenics were just as wrong as, lets say, the methods that were used to spread religion durring the Crusades...



On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with prenatal testing and screening, genetic counselling, birth control, in vitro fertilisation or genetic engineering.... In fact, I, for one, am wholeheartedly in favor of such endeavors. Why? Several reasons.



a.) Humans are unlike almost all other species of man. We have evolved, yes, evolved, physically, psychologically and intellectually to a level unrivaled, or perhaps merely uncomparable, to just about every other species of animal on the planet. Even after man was as we know him today, we have come so far, physically, psychologically, and intellectually from what we once were. The problem we face now, however, is that where our minds have progressed, changed, evolved, our bodies are lagging behind. Because of the societies we live in, especially in the western world, we have developed lifestyles, we have created environments, we have changed our nature and the order of nature around us to a point where it is no longer healthy. We evolved to use tools and change the environment around us, to our needs, and that is proving to weaken us as a species, and will be our downfall, at some time, unless we can figure out a way, with our gigantic brains, to fix it. To fix ourselves.



b.) The technology to create change and strengthen the species exists, and despite what anyone has to say about it, it will be, and is being, used. Honestly, those who are against it are fighting a battle they cannot win. I am not for full deregulation of the various methods of manipulation used in eugenic practices, however, I feel that the benefit for society, if genetic experimentation is done responsibly and ethically, far outweigh the probability that the science will be abused by someone at some point and time.



(to be continued again)

[edit on 2/6/08 by madhatr137]

(and finally)

c.) Simply put, it is my belief that eugenics is a, not the only, a form of evolution that man can do unto himself...and frankly, I think it is about time our species evolve beyond and crush the superstitions that bind us constantly keep trying to drag us back into an intellectual dark age.



4.) I believe that was covered in answering 3. There is no need to exterminate anyone. There are no inferior races. There are genetic abberations, disorders and diseases that make life difficult for the people afflicted with them...and I believe that such genetic abberations, disorders, and diseases can be remedied, probably, eventually more safely through eugenical means...



As the old saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But by no means compare my stance to the monsters who have come before....the moment that is done, it is fair play to compare the moral stance of current practicers of religions, such as Christianity, to the monsters who spread the word of their various gods at the end of a bloody sword.



I hope that his response is sufficient...though I know it shall not be....the feel of the thread is dialogue is not actually being sought and 'creators' know the answer they want to hear...anyway....I'm sure I've written more than anyone cares to read...note...this is not the view of a 'Darwinist' or a 'Evolutionist', it is merely MY view, as a supporter of Evolutionary theory....and once again, I feel the line of questioning to be loaded...


Your turn.

(That is all for now.)

[edit on 2/6/08 by madhatr137]

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by vox2442

Bigwhammy -

I'm not going to bother quoting your post, because at this point it looks like you've changed it substantially at least 4 times now - every time I think about it, and come back to reply, you've edited it again. A little less knee jerk, perhaps?

I'll just point out that the USA was pretty much THE leader in the Eugenics movement in the 1920s, when it emerged, and that forced - or coerced - sterilizations continued well into the 1960s. Eugenics as an official government policy was not born in Hitler's Germany - it's rooted in the USA.

Who cares where it's rooted, all you are saying is that it is and seems to be a popular idea in more than one country. What makes it deplorable isn't where it started but what GERMANY did with it.

It was the influence Darwinian evolution has on many to this day and Dawkins seems to agree with but I expect Godless people to behave and think like Godless people.

No surprises there.

- Con

Your 'us vs. them' mentality is really troubling. Just because a segment of the population doesn't believe in God doesn't necessarily make them immoral or inherently bad. I've known plenty of truly nasty folks deeply involved in Church politics.

How do you expect so-called 'Godless' people to behave? Doesn't your Bible tell you to 'judge not lest ye be judged?' Your post, especially the ridiculous part about 'Godless people' comes off as highly judgmental, whether you intended it to be that way or not.

Seems to me that the folks supporting evolution in this thread have been overwhelmingly polite and concise, while you on the other hand are behaving, frankly, like your stereotypical self-important Christian. And before the ATS God Squad jumps all over me, I'm not saying that all Christians are that way, not by a long shot.

If there's anything to be learned from this thread, it's that Christians do not hold a monopoly on morality. People in our society are raised to be moral beings, whether those morals take hold in the individual or not.

Originally posted by sacerd
1.) Do the Darwinist on this site, tend to also favor the ideas of social Darwinism as well? If not why?
2.) Do the Darwinists or evolutionist on this site tend to favor charity of the physically or mentally disabled? If so why?
3.) Do the Darwinist or evolutionist on this site tend to favor eugenics? if not why?
4.) Do the Darwinist or evolutionist on this site tend to favor forced sterilization or euthanasia, of the less fit specimens of the human race either mentally or physically? If not why?

I believe in the theory of evolution so I my have a say in here as well...
1. I just have vague knowledge of what really is "Social Darwinism", but from what I know, I can say that I don't support it because society is much different than the process by which natural organisms change.

2. I support charity of the disabled in order to give them a opportunity to improve their life. They are still beings with some capabilities that can be exploited for their personal development.

3. I favor eugenics to accelerate the development of the human race, physically and intellectually, and to reduce the number of diseases and birth defects that make people suffer.

4. For both, each case must be studied carefully.