clever
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.The full text of the article is here: The Gentle Darwinians - What Darwin’s Champions Won’t MentionIn 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at commonwealmagazine.org ...
clever
Clever? The term seems to imply some sort of illegitimacy to my argument. What about blind cave creatures? Do you think they have become blind over generations due to genetic regression? Or do you think an Intelligent Designer made them that way? If they did become blind over generations, is that evolution? I think these are hard questions!
BTW, did you see the 2 hour History Channel show aired tonight on the Spartan "300" ? They covered the Spartan practice of "exposure" of the newborn, and further stated ( which I hadn't known ) that each newborn would be carefully examined for defects by an elder, and disposed of accordingly. Not precisely a eugenically motivated program, but effectively a brutal version of one.
Dr_Lew...here is an article from Wikipedia, about eugenics...in the paragraph I have copied here, it makes mention of this Spartan practice of exposure of newborns...I know that many people do not like Wikipedia as the end source, so I am using Wikipedia as a starting point, as a place in which to begin looking at the subject of eugenics, and going on from there...anyway, here is the paragraph I am talking about, with a link...one can then go into further study on the subject if one wishes...
'Pre-Galton eugenics
Selective breeding was suggested at least as far back as Plato, who believed human reproduction should be controlled by government. He recorded these ideals in The Republic: "The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior." Plato proposed that the process be concealed from the public via a form of lottery. Other ancient examples include Sparta's purported practice of infanticide. However, they would leave all babies outside for a length of time, and the survivors were considered stronger, while many "weaker" babies perished.[citation needed]'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Infanticide might have happened, but history shows that eugenics and/or eugenically motivated programs don't work.
"According to RussP:
A=B therefor C=D."
How long did it take you to pull that one out of your rear end? Give me a clue where I said anything even remotely resembling that.
You guys are a waste of my time.
I don't think history shows that. It shows that no eugenic program has ever been practiced widely enough and long enough to show results, unless one might care to admit that the Spartan stock did improve wrt physical endurance and strength.
The issue is uncontroversial in favor of eugenics in the case of domestic animals, and in fact Darwin leads off his treatise with a discussion of animal breeding. Do you want to maintain that humans are exempt from any such treatment? On what basis?
Why do you waste your precious time here?
Well there is now an alternative
Eugenics
From Conservapedia
Eugenics is the practise of improving or altering a race through selective breeding. The Nazis were in favour of eugenics, and Richard Dawkins has recently called for society's negative view of it to be questioned. Eugenics is proof that scientists who are Darwinists should be carefully watched.
Retrieved from http://www.conservapedia.com/Eugenics
Yep no bias there
Marxist philosophy gave rise to totalitarian governments.
Those governments killed more people it the last century than any other entity in history.
Marxism is defended by people who believe there is no inevitable logical connection between Marxism and totalitarianism.
Evolutionism is defended by people who believe there is no inevitable logical connection between evolutionism and racism.
You people who try so hard to make the 'evolution = eugenics' connection are just creating your own circle-jerk of mutually accepted nonsense, thereby making more and more posts on FR look like they are from kooks.
Right from Conservapedia, the best source for an alternative to reality.
Did you stay up all night to come up with that or does writing falshoods come naturally to you?
Reductio ad Absurdum
Which makes it all the more ironic.
Bottom dollar every Islamic suicide bomber subscribes to creationism.
Bottom dollar Andrea Yates subscribes to creationism.
Bottom dollar the veritable army of rapists and pedophiles listed here subscribe to creationism.
Bottom dollar Jim Jones subscribed to creationism.
Bottom dollar every two-bit television con-man holding himself out as the "one true collection plate for God" subscribes to creationism.
Etc., etc., etc. . . .
From this Conservapedia site...
'Eugenics is proof that scientists who are Darwinists should be carefully watched.'
Sigh...yes, Conservapedia is an alternative, and a poor one at that...are they paranoid about other things as well?....I will have to look over this alternative site, and see what other goodies they have...thanks for that link...
Liberation Theology gives rise to Marxism.
Marxist philosophy gave rise to totalitarian governments.
Those governments killed more people it the last century than any other entity in history.
Christianity is defended by people who believe there is no inevitable logical connection between Marxism and totalitarianism.
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.