It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Have Eugenecists Hijacked Evolution?

page: 1

log in


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]

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Well thought out and well written thread.

I find it fascinating,especially when the internet is at our fingertips,that people don't do any research for themselves.Its the simplest thing in the world to find out the differences between Eugenics,Evolution and Social Darwinism.

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by jakyll

That is very true however i think there are three camps here.

Those who don't understand the difference and don't want to as they can stick to their creationist websites and not think for themselves.

The second group are the ones who are so utterly blinded by their faith that they won't accept anything to the contrary. I must admit i actually feel sorry for these people as they're close minded and nothing would convince them.

Then there is the third group, who clearly know the difference and simply lie about it to confuse the layman with Hitler, Stalin, evolution and eugenics. They like to put these issues together to further their religious views. Those views need to destroy evolution and to equate it with Hitler is the fast track to destroy evoltuion (in their eyes).

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 05:35 PM
Those who come under groups 1 and 2 confuse me.

If they are never gonna remotely except or respect another's argument or point of view,or they're never gonna be open to change;why exactly are they debating?? Why even join a site that is about debating and keeping an open mind??

There have been many times in my life when my opinion has been changed because of another's argument,and there have been times people have helped me to see something from a different angle and it has brought me more enlightenment and knowledge.

posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 06:40 PM
reply to post by jakyll

Those two groups join to try and convince others and promote their religious views. They are zealots, and like all good zealots they exist to promote their religions views and convert people. Even if they convert with lies they are happy. They are very much, ends justify the means, kind of people.

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:44 AM
Here's the new eugenics. Big British firms (e.g. Pearson) take an international role in developing tests for professional license exams (i.e. money/survival). The scores are based on the difficulty of the complicated questions to the test-taker. How is the difficulty generated? Based on the difficulty curve of past test-takers. The result? Wherever there is a racial or sex bias in a question, and a group that has a majority of the 'desired' attributes, then, cycle after cycle, the test questions will be easier and easier for the target group and more and more difficult for the minority group. It's called CAT (computer assisted testing).

posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:50 AM
Very well thought out thread.

I agree with you that evolution and eugenics have become convoluted. I think the reason behind this is that if you support the theory of evolution, then de facto you believe in the concept of heredity. From that point, its not a massive leap to suggest eugenic measures.

I'm a social infrastructure eugenicist. By that I mean that we as humans have an unprecedented ability to choose our course of evolution. Merely by our own knowledge and social norms, we are able to change the course of evolution. It would be wrong to suggest that evolution is somehow more lenient than eugenics.
In evolution, a disabled person would die.
In human society, they are treated with dignity and cared for. However simultaneously, we need to enact social eugenic measures that redress the balance of dignity and humanity vs evolution.

By this I mean that I am dismayed by the benefits culture that is prevalent within my society. By encouraging the unfit and mentally deficient to outbreed the intelligent, we are creating a dysgenic effect on our own society. This is quite unintended, but must be redressed nonetheless.

In my version of eugenic redress, there would be no sterilization of the "unfit" or any other such Nazi relics. All I ask is that heredity be taken into consideration when procreation measures are created... ie benefits only extended to 2 children.

Eugenics is only about considering and balancing the effect our conscience has upon the course of evolution. It's a damn sight more forgiving than evolution.

top topics


log in