Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Let the Evolutionists Win
American Vision ^ | Gary DeMar

Posted on 12/21/2005 7:15:48 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe

I think we should let the evolutionists have their way. They oppose any mention of creation in government schools, even rejecting the notion of Intelligent Design. They see the Scopes Trial of 1925 as the turning point for the upsurge in evolutionary legitimacy. While John Scopes was convicted for teaching evolution contrary to state law and had to pay a $100 fine, public opinion and educational monopoly turned toward evolution.1

One way to beat an opposing worldview is to force its proponents to live consistently with the position. Since Scopes was accused of teaching from the state-adopted textbook A Civic Biology Presented in Problems by George William Hunter, then let the evolutionists teach A Civic Biology today. If it was good for the evolutionists in 1925, then it should be good for them today. Forget the stickers describing evolution as a theory,2 make them teach the real thing.

Chapter 14 of Hunter’s book, adopted in 1914 by the state of Tennessee, includes standard material “on evolution, with protozoa, worms, insects, reptiles, birds and mammals. Man is grouped with the apelike mammals. Hunter writes that ‘there is an immense mental gap between monkey and man.’ He adds that monkeys ‘seem to have many of the mental attributes of man,’ and this ‘justifies his inclusion with man in a separate mental genus.’ Hunter states that ‘early man must have been little better than one of the lower animals.’ The chapter concludes with a claim of white supremacy.” This should go over big with the minority populations.

Hunter returns to the subject of eugenics in chapter 17. “If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved upon, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection.”

“In marriage, Hunter says, there are some things that ‘the individual as well as the race should demand.’ To have children with tuberculosis, syphilis, epilepsy or feeble-mindedness is ‘not only unfair but criminal.’” So why not let the Avian Flu run its course so we can purge the planet of the unfit? Why spend billions on vaccinations? We could get unemployment down to about one percent. With tens of million of useless eaters gone, global warming might be delayed, maybe even averted.

Hunter compares the Jukes and Kallikaks, pseudonyms for two families, one inheriting criminality (Jukes) and the other inheriting mental retardation (Kallikaks), “to show the need for eugenics.” Hunter’s A Civic Biology includes some rather impolitic suggestions:

The Jukes. —Studies have been made on a number of different families in this country, in which mental and moral defects were present in one or both of the original parents. The “Jukes” family is a notorious example. The first mother is known as “Margaret, the mother of criminals.” In seventy-five years the progeny of the original generation has cost the state of New York over a million and a quarter dollars, besides giving over to the care of prisons and asylums considerably over a hundred feeble-minded, alcoholic, immoral, or criminal persons. Another case recently studied is the “Kallikak” family. . . . This family has been traced back to the War of the Revolution, when a young soldier named Martin Kallikak seduced a feeble-minded girl. She had a feeble-minded son from whom there have been to the present time 480 descendants. Of these 33 were sexually immoral, 24 confirmed drunkards, 3 epileptics, and 143 feeble-minded. The man who started this terrible line of immorality and feeble-mindedness later married a normal Quaker girl. From this couple a line of 496 descendants have come, with no cases of feeble-mindedness. The evidence and the moral speak for themselves!

Parasitism and its Cost to Society. —Hundreds of families such as those described above exist today, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money. Largely for them the poorhouse and the asylum exist. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.

The Remedy. —If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with some success in this country.

Wow! I want to see the ACLU, the science departments at all the major universities, and public school officials who are working overtime to keep any mention of God out of schools to defend these evolutionary assumptions. Obviously, “the book would not be acceptable in any school system in the United States today, because of the things that it says about the poor, blacks, and people with disabilities.” But it should be acceptable. Any fight against evolution today is described as Scopes II. If the evolutionists believe that putting John Scopes on trial for teaching from Hunter's book was wrong-headed, then they must believe that Hunter’s book was the right text to teach biology. As far as I can find, no one defending Scopes objected to Hunter’s biology text.

“When people talk about the Scopes trial, their ideas are usually shaped by the distorted propaganda in the movie [Inherit the Wind], not by the actual trial. The real event concerned a book that asserted the supremacy of whites, encouraged contempt for the poor, and hinted at forced sterilization or even more violent acts.” Let’s make the evolutionists own up to their racist, elitist, and supremacist past.3 Looking back, one pro-evolution writer comments: “Here 1920’s science was right about the basics of evolution, but was wrong about social Darwinism and white genetic supremacy and was immoral to advocate eugenics.”4 Based on what? If there is no God, then what’s wrong with eugenics, even the most vile kind? Given atheist first principles that are used by today’s top defenders of evolution, how do we know that “social Darwinism” is wrong? How do we “know” anything is wrong? In fact, how do we “know” anything?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. http://www.cross-currents.com/wp-content/Intelligent_Design_Kansas.doc 2. Jon Gillooly, “Evolution fight heads back to court,” Marietta Daily Journal (December 14, 2005): http://www.mdjonline.com/268/10204126.txt

3. The material on George Hunter’s A Civic Biology is taken from “The Scopes Trial,” chapter 8 of John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe’s An Exploration of Eugenic: http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap08.html

4. http://volokh.com/posts/1099763167.shtml


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; americanhistory; atheismandstate; butleract; charlesdarwin; churchandstate; clarencedarrow; crevo; crevolist; darwin; eugenics; evolution; johntscopes; monkeytrial; pc; politicallycorrect; pseudoscience; publicschools; racism; revisionisthistory; science; scopestrial; shamefulpast; socialengineering; tennessee; williamjenningsbryan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: Tirian

BTW, I don't think the lead article is the best way to go ... the issue is being conversant in and intelligently critiquing the current naturalistic framework, not the past and somewhat quaint versions. However, the past history of eugenics and social Darwinism that were logical outworkings of Darwinism have been far too little discussed, shunted aside like an embarrasing relative.


21 posted on 12/21/2005 9:24:06 PM PST by Tirian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie

ID is not creationism.

It explores the possibility of life in the universe having been created by beings who billions of years ago, in order to preserve their heritage, spread encoded DNA fragments across many Class-M planets, Earth being one of course, thereby triggering the development of beings similar to themselves.

These creators will return one day, and stand judgment on humanity at some place called Farpoint, where a judge named simply "Q" will decide whether the human race should be allowed to continue to exist or be destroyed, unless of course Captain Picard, Data, and the rest of the crew of the Starship Enterprise can stop him.


22 posted on 12/21/2005 9:24:27 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

You connected home schooling to the whole creationist concept. I didn't. I am sure a whole lot of home school kids learn a lot more than in govt schools. And yes, you can memorize stuff and pass courses.

No one yet has answered about creationism and the dinosaur bones.


23 posted on 12/21/2005 9:28:27 PM PST by Recovering Ex-hippie (The Fifth Column is alive and well in the U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Very clever satire. thanks.


24 posted on 12/21/2005 9:29:40 PM PST by Recovering Ex-hippie (The Fifth Column is alive and well in the U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie; Tirian

Hopefully you apply a more scientific basis when dealing with real science. Although I can't begin to count all the "evolutionists" who spout stuff like this at the first sign of a fight.

A lot of evolutionists define a "scientist" as someone who believes in evolution, so they can say that no "scientist" believes in creation. They will often insert "real scientist" to cover the fact that some apparently "fake" scientists are still around.

When that doesn't work, they simply stop allowing creationists to even get into the field, so they can say that evolution must be true since all biologists believe it. I realise that a real scientist would NEVER make that argument, so I am shocked to say that I still read it all the time. Just this week a different evolution discussion included that very thing.

I have no idea what Tirian is, but I have no reason to think he is lying, or why (other than your obvious prejudice against him) you think he must be lying. I'm an engineer, because I was smart enough. If I wasn't, I probably would have had to settle for a science degree. :->


25 posted on 12/21/2005 9:32:21 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie
Ain't buying your story. You are not in biology. You are an engineer, if your story is at all true.

Fascinating, if somewhat veiled, ad hominem attack response. (Maybe I'm actually a long-haul trucker in the Solomon Islands?) I happen to be (really and truly) on the interface of life science and engineering but am not an engineer. Note that biology has historically been self-selecting, with people who questioned Darwinism veering away because of the implicit -- if not explicit-- "Caesar is Lord" requirement that the reigning orthodoxy be accepted. But that is changing.

26 posted on 12/21/2005 9:34:31 PM PST by Tirian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie
Then again...it could be creationism wearing one of these:


27 posted on 12/21/2005 9:36:12 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Recovering Ex-hippie; Tailgunner Joe
You connected home schooling to the whole creationist concept.

You do realise that we can all still READ what you posted, right? If you are going to deny what you said, you could at least have the courtesy of doing so in another thread, rather than trying to insult our intelligence in this manner.

In post 6, tailgunner Joe said I am so thankful I homeschool because we can explore anything and everything to whatever degree we want

To which YOU (Recovering ex-hippie) replied, in post 11 Can't wait for all the homeschoolers to apply for a degree in any of the sciences in college. Good luck!

Now, I know that having said I once was a creationists makes my brain feeble, but since we are discussing evolution/creation, it seems clear to me that your post 11 was saying that "all the homeschoolers" would have trouble getting a degree in ANY of the sciences in college, and that you were refering to the suggestion by Joe that he might teach ID to his homeschooled children (he didn't say he would, but he implied it).

So, YOU (ex-hippie) were the first one to link homeschoolers, creation, and college rejection.

I disagreed with your assertion, and you replied by insulting me, and I replied back asking you ever so clearly to defend your statement, even going so far as to INCLUDE your statement in my post (#20).

For the 2nd time, rather than defend your slanderous attack on homeschoolers, you are now trying to deny you brought it up?

I hope you apply more rigor to your science work.

And yes, I am arguing for the fun of it. And I'm wondering if your user name is entirely accurate..... :->

28 posted on 12/21/2005 9:41:42 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tailgunner Joe

You wrote: "...In fact, how do we “know” anything?"

Reply: You might consider education. Astrolgy, holy texts from different cultures, and nostradamus have not been reliable.


29 posted on 12/21/2005 11:08:25 PM PST by thomaswest (Just Curious)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I can memorize anything, and back then they just made you prove you had learned the material, they didn't require a blood oath to the god of evolution like so many programs do today.

I'd love to see you back up this silly statement.

You can start by listing some of these "so many programs" where demonstrating knowledge in a subject is not enough and that require the students to take a "blood oath".

30 posted on 12/22/2005 6:47:48 AM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: highball

Actually, look back about 1 year at FR for postings re: the bio prof who would not write letters of recommendation for students unless they indeed took the "blood oath" - a make or break for many looking at med school.


31 posted on 12/22/2005 1:18:32 PM PST by Tirian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tirian

Link?

Even if one moron did this, I'm waiting for proof of CharlesWayneCT's contention that "so many programs" require it.


32 posted on 12/22/2005 1:24:44 PM PST by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson