Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Gentle Darwinians - What Darwin’s Champions Won’t Mention
Commonweal ^ | March 9, 2007 | Peter Quinn

Posted on 03/08/2007 7:46:04 PM PST by ofwaihhbtn

The enthusiasm Nietzsche expresses in this passage is for eugenics, a theory of biological determinism invented by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s first cousin. However extreme Nietzsche’s recommendation might sound today, by the first part of the twentieth century eugenics came to be widely practiced. In 1933, little more than thirty years after Nietzsche’s death, the Hereditary Health Courts set up in Nazi Germany were enforcing a rigorous policy of enforced sterilization; to a lesser degree, similar policies were carried out in societies from the United States to Scandinavia.

In 1912, in his presidential address to the First International Congress of Eugenics, a landmark gathering in London of racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world, Major Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son, trumpeted the spread of eugenics and evolution. As described by Nicholas Wright Gillham in his A Life of Francis Galton, Major Darwin foresaw the day when “eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, as Galton had hoped, but a ‘paramount duty’ whose tenets would presumably become enforceable.” The major repeated his father’s admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by “the spirit of civilization,” society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst “without further delay.”

Leonard Darwin’s recognition of his father’s role in the formation and promotion of eugenics was more than filial piety.

The full text of the article is here: The Gentle Darwinians - What Darwin’s Champions Won’t Mention

(Excerpt) Read more at commonwealmagazine.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: atheistcontrolfreaks; darwin; eugenics; evolution; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 last
To: doc30
The problem with the mathematical approaches I've seen is that they are devoid of the physical properties of the materials involved. Playing probability numbers without understanding the nature of the chemistry involved is an invalid approach.

Yes. It's akin to claiming to be able to determine the probability of rolling a six using an unknown number of dice with an unknown number of sides with unknown numbers in an unknown number of passes.

181 posted on 03/12/2007 8:36:06 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: jude24

"Frankly, the opinions of mathematicians, unless they are also trained in biochemistry or a related field, is irrelevant. All biochemists have some mathematical training, but not all mathematicians have biochemical training. Relatively few have even taken college-level general chemistry."

Actually, I think you have it backwards. Biology and biochemistry are subjects that any reasonably intelligent person can "pick up" with some effort, but advanced mathematics is something that requires not only more effort but more talent. A biology curriculum requires a lot of memorization, but a math curriculum requires much more deep understanding.

My impression is that many biologists are simply out of their league when it comes to mathematics. Hence, their complete and utter failure to even understand the problem of explaining he first living cell in purely naturalistic terms.

In fact, when you get right down to the heart of the matter, the whole concept of ID is a mathematical concept. Just as the analysis of SETI signals in search of intelligence is in principle a mathematical problem, so is the search for ID in biological systems. And the people who deny that any such analysis is even possible are mathematically illiterate or close to it.

It's been fun folks, but I think I've wasted about enough time on this thread.


182 posted on 03/12/2007 9:05:04 AM PDT by RussP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: RussP
Actually, I think you have it backwards. Biology and biochemistry are subjects that any reasonably intelligent person can "pick up" with some effort, but advanced mathematics is something that requires not only more effort but more talent. A biology curriculum requires a lot of memorization, but a math curriculum requires much more deep understanding.

The more you move fromo biology to chemistry (i.e. biochemistry) the greater the need for higher math.

In fact, when you get right down to the heart of the matter, the whole concept of ID is a mathematical concept. Just as the analysis of SETI signals in search of intelligence is in principle a mathematical problem, so is the search for ID in biological systems. And the people who deny that any such analysis is even possible are mathematically illiterate or close to it.

Your problem is that you are confusing math and science. You can theorize all you want about science via mathematics, but that is just theory. Not all math theorums manifest themselved physically. Math is used as a tool by science to describe physcial phenomena. Math is not a scientific end-development. Without physical measurements, the math theorizing you describe is unsubstantiated.

183 posted on 03/12/2007 10:23:47 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: RussP
If you don't mind, I'll just leave you to your ignorance. You seem to be so proud of it anyway.

So you only preach the choir?

184 posted on 03/12/2007 10:45:19 AM PDT by si tacuissem (sapere aude!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: RussP
"... but advanced mathematics is something that requires not only more effort but more talent."

This "advanced mathematics" you should have learned at a good high school. It's 19th century math.

"My impression is that many biologists are simply out of their league when it comes to mathematics."

Why do you think biologists are just as smart as you are?

"In fact, when you get right down to the heart of the matter, the whole concept of ID is a mathematical concept."

Can you provide a link to a "mathematical concept" of ID?

"Just as the analysis of SETI signals in search of intelligence is in principle a mathematical problem, so is the search for ID in biological systems."

SETI is looking for "known characteristics" of artificial radio signals. The assumption of "known characteristics" is the aliens broadcast like we do.
ID is searching for "unknown characteristics" of intelligent design.

"And the people who deny that any such analysis is even possible are mathematically illiterate or close to it."

Analysis is possible if you know what are you looking for. Just calculating intelligent design won't help.


"It's been fun folks, but I think I've wasted about enough time on this thread."

Yes, use your time to learn something about 19th century "advanced mathematics" before arguing with it.
185 posted on 03/12/2007 11:12:40 AM PDT by MHalblaub ("Easy my friends, when it comes to the point it is only a drawing made by a non believing Dane...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: si tacuissem

Prove how the first cell came into existence.


186 posted on 03/12/2007 2:40:55 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Prove how the first cell came into existence.

Prove how it didn't.

187 posted on 03/12/2007 3:26:04 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad
How is your son doing over there these days?
188 posted on 03/12/2007 6:45:14 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs; taxesareforever
Prove how the first cell came into existence.

Prove how it didn't.

On a scientific basis?
189 posted on 03/12/2007 7:07:27 PM PDT by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Gumlegs
Prove how the first cell came into existence. Prove how it didn't.

What an assinine statement. We all know that there was a first cell. Why should I prove that it didn't come into existence?

190 posted on 03/12/2007 8:42:44 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
SETI is looking for "known characteristics" of artificial radio signals. The assumption of "known characteristics" is the aliens broadcast like we do. ID is searching for "unknown characteristics" of intelligent design.

Good point. SETI is looking for something that resembles known human artifacts, but coming from a source other than earth. In this sense, it is a form of archaeology.

191 posted on 03/12/2007 10:10:52 PM PDT by js1138 (The absolute seriousness of someone who is terminally deluded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Robert is well physically. However, he recently had his laptop computer (bought this past November) stolen from his quarters while he was out on patrol. You'd think that in a secure area that thievery wouldn't be possible. I hope the perp is caught and prosecuted to within an inch of his life (I really hate thieves). Thanks for asking about how he is doing.
192 posted on 03/13/2007 9:26:36 AM PDT by SoldierDad (Proud Father of a 2nd BCT 10th Mountain Soldier fighting the terrorists in Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: RussP
And his belief in eugenics was based on evolutionism

The modern "science" of eugenics follows directly from a mistaken notion about heredity on the part of darwinians. This notion is not present in mendelian genetics. 140 years of science education has had almost no effect on this whatever. The darwinian notion of heredity persists, and it is as current today as it was a century ago. Dennett, Dawkins, and most sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists still make a living off this error, despite any attempt at correction. Compare these two notions:

1. Darwinian notion of heredity. If a trait arose in a population by selection, that trait must correspond to something inheritable (something in the germ-plasm). If all traits are adaptations, then all traits must be in some way inheritable.

2. Mendelian notion of heredity. The only traits in a population that can be inherited are those that correspond to genetic factors.

You will notice that (2) is roughly the opposite of (1). Here is an example of (1) from a modern darwinian, Gregory Carey. This is from his Intro to Evolutionary Psychology, 1998...

"Now imagine that you and your partner are moths instead of humans. Faced with a bright light on a dark night, both of you would orient and then proceed to the light quite oblivious to the other. There would be no social discourse or give-and-take maneuvering to achieve consensus. There is only a built-in stimulus response connection. So why do humans and moths behave differently? Among the several levels at which this question can be answered is an evolutionary level. Moths have a hardwired response to light because at some point in their evolutionary history moths that oriented and flew toward light reproduced more often than those who did not. We humans followed a different evolutionary path."
Here Carey makes the assumption that the moth's behavior is an adaptation, arising by natural selection, and by application of (1) he is led to conclude that there must be a genetic factor corresponding to this behavior, regardless of whether or not there really is such a genetic factor.

It is easy to see that notion (1) leads directly to eugenics, but notion (2) does not. For the instant that one claims traits such as feeble-mindedness, alcoholism, prostitution, poverty, and unemployment are "adaptations", i.e, the result of selection pressure, one is also saying that they are genetically inherited: that they "run in the germ-plasm", regardless of empirical evidence. And from this follows the modern "scientific" justification for sterilizing or gassing alcoholics, the feeble-minded, prostitutes, the unemployed, the poor, etc.

Darwin Medalist Karl Pearson was one of the most prominent British eugenicists. Hiram Caton writes...

" Mendel’s publication enjoyed none of the braggadocio of “revolutionary” enlightenment. Indeed, it had no uptake whatever during his time. Yet eventually biologists rediscovered his work and embarked on a course leading to the discovery of chromosomes, genes, alleles, and sexual replication. It is a lesson worth repeating that Darwinians of the day recoiled in horror from these splendid discoveries. They proudly declared their “faith” in the master while hurling themselves vehemently at the new science. One, the brilliant Karl Pearson, persisted in dogged opposition to genetics until his death in 1936! So much for evidence."

193 posted on 04/15/2007 12:12:15 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-193 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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