Posted on 01/28/2009 11:36:17 AM PST by Coyoteman
We will see and hear the term “Darwinism” a lot during 2009, a year during which scientists, teachers, and others who delight in the accomplishments of modern biology will commemorate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species. But what does “Darwinism” mean? And how is it used? At best, the phrase is ambiguous and misleading about science. At worst, its use echoes a creationist strategy to demonize evolution.
snip...
In summary, then, “Darwinism” is an ambiguous term that impairs communication even about Darwin’s own ideas. It fails to convey the full panoply of modern evolutionary biology accurately, and it fosters the inaccurate perception that the field stagnated for 150 years after Darwin’s day. Moreover, creationists use “Darwinism” to frame evolutionary biology as an ism or ideology, and the public understanding of evolution and science suffers as a result. True, in science, we do not shape our research because of what creationists claim about our subject matter. But when we are in the classroom or otherwise dealing with the public understanding of science, it is entirely appropriate to consider whether what we say may be misunderstood. We cannot expect to change preconceptions if we are not willing to avoid exacerbating them. A first step is eschewing the careless use of “Darwinism.”
(Excerpt) Read more at springerlink.com ...
Darwin Medalist Karl Pearson, Darwinism, Medical Progress, and Eugenics, an address to the West London Medical-Surgical Society, 1912:
Let me, even at the risk of talking about the familiar, sketch for you the broad outlines of Darwin's theory of evolutionary progress. The individual better fitted to its environment lived longer than its fellows, had more offspring, and these, inheriting its better fitness, raised the type of the race. The environment against which the individual had to struggle here was not only formed by the other members of its species, not only by its physical surroundings, but by the germs of disease of all types. According to Darwin -- and some of us still believe him to be right -- the ascent of man, physical and mental, was brought about by this survival of the fitter. Now, if you are going lo take Darwinism as your theory of life and apply it to human problems, you must not only believe it to be true, but you must set to, and demonstrate that it actually applies.Darwin's theory means this, that if individuals are reared under a constant environment, and a larger percentage of them are killed off in the first year of life, then a smaller percentage of those remaining will die in the later years of life, because more of the weaklings have been killed off... Now if there be -- and I, for one, think that two independent lines of inquiry demonstrate that there is -- a fairly stringent selection of the weaker individuals by the mortality of infancy and childhood, what will happen, if by increased medical skill and by increased state support and private charity, we enable the weaklings to survive and to propagate their kind? Why, undoubtedly we shall have a weaker race... Surely here is an antinomy -- a fundamental opposition between medical progress and the science of national eugenics, of race efficiency. Gentlemen, I venture to think it is an antinomy, and will remain one until the nation at large recognises as a fundamental doctrine the principle that everyone, being born, has the right to live, but the right to live does not in itself convey the right to everyone to reproduce their kind... Our social instincts, our common humanity enforce upon us the conception that each person born has the right to live, yet this right essentially connotes a suspension of the full intensity of natural selection. Darwinism and medical progress are opposed forces, and we shall gain nothing by screening that fact, or, in opposition to ample evidence, asserting that Darwinism has no application to civilised man... I say that only a very thorough eugenic policy can possibly save our race from the evils which must flow from the antagonism between natural selection and medical progress.
It’s got a lot to do with the devaluing of human life that makes abortion palatable for so many people.
Christianity holds all life as sacred. It doesn’t allow for killing babies because they’re deformed, or the wrong gender, or they’re inconvenient.
Christianity has the moral restraint on killing that doesn’t exist in other belief systems. In a survival of the fittest mentality, there is no reason to consider killing the defective as wrong because there is no moral base.
That is laughable.
Feel free to expound. This should be interesting. I'm guessing you're going to blame America's high abortion rate on the TOE.
I'm guessing you don't understand that eugenics is a primary component of Darwinism. Or you are just a typical Darwinist who prefers to focus on evolutionary theory rather than address the true agenda of Darwinism, you're probably one of these leftists who think that communism is all about economic theory.
Not to mention the very hard work of evolutionists like Julian Huxley to legalize and promote abortion and euthanasia and so on.
Again, I'm not going to bother discussing the "Darwinism" you've created. It's just a strawman for you to flog and does not reflect any real political or ideological movement.
Or you are just a typical Darwinist who prefers to focus on evolutionary theory rather than address the true agenda of Darwinism
Trying to argue about whether "Darwinism" as defined by you is good or bad is like trying to argue whether Orcs worshipping Sauron is bad- it's just a discussion of a fictional concept.
you're probably one of these leftists who think that communism is all about economic theory.
What do you think communism is about, then?
There is nothing in the TOE that devalues human life. The TOE just talks about how our species (and others) got where it is today. Any atrocities we commit are done through our own free will and can't be blamed on a theory that does nothing but describe a certain portion of the physical world.
Did you disagree?
And let’s not forget the hard work of “biologists” like Rachel Carson who used Darwinian theories to invent “enviornmentalism” and pushed a false theory (”National Geographic” has even admitted this) that directly resulted in at least 50 million deaths all to save some bird eggs that were never endangered in the first place.
I didn't create a damn thing, I'm talking about the Darwinism that was created by Charles Darwin, his cousin, son and other relatives.
What do you think communism is about, then?
Marx wrote about communism as an economic theory, then his apostles decided to use this to attempt to destroy Christianity and in the process killed over a hundred million people.
Darwin wrote about evolution as a biological theory, then his apostles decided to use this to attempt to destroy Christianity and in the process killed over a billion people.
You're seriously claiming that they invented a:
political philosophy that seeks the destruction of Judeo-Christian culture, an elite governing class and population control/manipulation through eugenics.
Come on. That's completely removed from reality.
Marx wrote about communism as an economic theory, then his apostles decided to use this to attempt to destroy Christianity and in the process killed over a hundred million people.
Sure. They considered Christianity to be a threat to their new religion.
Darwin wrote about evolution as a biological theory, then his apostles decided to use this to attempt to destroy Christianity and in the process killed over a billion people.
The murders committed by the various totalitarian regimes of the 20th century had nothing to do with the TOE. The biggest killer of the 20th century, communism, was based on economic, not biological theory, for example.
Indeed. Thanks for the ping.
As an investigative tool, we know of none better than the methodology of Science. Born out of the philosophical rigor of Western Civilization, that was its assignment: to investigate and discover the facts. Its assignment never was to discover the truth (or the TRVTH, if you prefer). It is our values, informed by the facts, which will take us to the truth. Our opponents seek to inundate us with facts (‘science’), then lead us to conclusions (ideas) without ever examining the underlying values that inform those ideas. I call that practice the “fallacy of the smuggled concept.” Our friends, boop and A-G, describe it as “doing philosophy under the colour of science.” Same thing.
Only if you ignore history.
Sure. They considered Christianity to be a threat to their new religion.
As do the Darwinists.
The murders committed by the various totalitarian regimes of the 20th century had nothing to do with the TOE. The biggest killer of the 20th century, communism, was based on economic, not biological theory, for example.
The biggest killer of the 20th century is Darwinian eugenics, at a minimum 850 MILLION babies have been murdered, NOTHING else even comes close.
As does Sauron, but he is just as fictional as your "Darwinists."
The biggest killer of the 20th century is Darwinian eugenics, at a minimum 850 MILLION babies have been murdered, NOTHING else even comes close.
To prove that, you'd have to show me the total number of deaths and prove that they were somehow caused by people applying eugenicist ideals. You know you can't do that, of course.
The evo-atheists don’t want people to know about Sanger and her Darwinian obsession with having as many black babies aborted as possible. Her entire program was to promote as many abortions as possible, all in the name of saving the “race”. All for Darwin.
Darwin, Huxley, Galton, Keynes, Sanger, Hitler, yeah they are all "fictional."
To prove that, you'd have to show me the total number of deaths and prove that they were somehow caused by people applying eugenicist ideals. You know you can't do that, of course.
ALL abortion is based on eugenics, so here is a low estimate:
Summary of Registered Abortions Worldwide, through October 2008
They don't actually consider the victims of abortion to be "people" and this makes it easier for them to ignore the statistics.
Not really. Few, if any, women get abortions for eugenic reasons, however broadly defined. Most do so for economic reasons.
Absolutely untrue and abortion only exists as it does today because of the work of eugenicists.
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.