posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:21 PM
Yes this thread has a similar title to the atheist one but it's for a very good reason.
In the other thread someone keeps mixing evolution with eugenics and it's blatantly wrong. In fact it's so obviously, logically incorrect that to
claim it requires either ignorance of the theories involved or deliberate deceit.
So lets just outline the two theories shall we.
Evolution is the theory that animals adapt to their enviroment via natural selection. This doesn't mean the strongest animal will survive, or the
most intelligent. It simple means the most adapted to the enviroment.
As a very fast example, imagine a planet full of a toxic chemical, the physically strongest animal might die and the smallest insect might survive.
Simply because the insect could metabolise the toxin. This is evolution, survival of the fittest, fittest meaning most suited to the enviroment.
Eugenics is a human idea that recommends controlled breeding. It isn't a new idea either and one that was well in place before Darwin was born. The
romans for example used to breed the strongest slaves to try and make their children even stronger and so they could get more moeny fm selling them.
Eugenics is a complete perversion of evolution. Whereas evolution states that animals with the best adaptations will survive, eugenics picks the
attributes that we wish to pass along. Therefore eugenics has stepped outside of evolution because it is no longer a natural process. Eugenecists are
imprinting what they believe are the best qualities into human beings and trying to amplify them.
The problems with this are obvious. However the problems aren't what this thread is about, the thread is about how these theories are completely
seperate, chalk and cheese. Yet so often certain people, especially creationists will try to put them together. Because by doing so they can point to
people like Hitler and say "oh look what evolution leads to".
Evolution is not eugenics, evolution is not what Hitler was doing. He may have thought he was doing that, but he simply wasn't. So for al lthe
creationists here, please stop lying and using this arguement. Afterall i don't think god would be to happy with you lying.
[edit on 6-10-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]