[ofwaihhbtn]

The connection between Darwin and eugenics you always knew was there is discussed in this article.

[SteveMcKing]

If you connect the two, then it is by choice and no logical reason.

[Coyoteman]

Hatchet job alert.

[GSlob]

All employees failing to evolve by the Monday noon will be subjected to summary extinction.
Personnel Department.

[Buck W.]

What connection?

[WorkingClassFilth]

Bottom dollar says Peter Singer subscribes to evolutionary theory.

[freespirited]

... Darwin is adamant about the need for the civilized races to preserve in some degree the process of natural selection, which requires the adoption of eugenic principles:

This is absurd. Natural selection and eugenic principles (at least the kind of forced eugenics to which he refers) are polar opposites. With natural selection, man is not the decision-maker. With forced eugenics, he is. By practicing forced eugenics, a society does not embrace natural selection. It turns it on its head.

No matter how hard people like Quinn try, the fact will remain that Darwin was a very decent man who did not advocate forced eugenics.

[WestVirginiaRebel]

[Central Scrutiniser]

Lame logical fallacy.

How pathetic.

Yet, it represents the creationist's lack of understanding pretty well.



BTW, Hitler loved dogs, ergo dog lovers are all nazis.

[quietolong]

A good book to read:

The State Boys Rebellion
http://www.simonsays.com/content/content.cfm?sid=33&pid=422319

It’s interesting that Germany looked to the US for it’s ideas on eugenics.

Excerpt from link:

Though they couldn't possible know it, the children of the Fernald State School were the victims of bad science and a newly developed bureaucracy designed to save America from the so-called "menace of the feebleminded." Beginning early in the twentieth century, United States health officials used crude versions of the modern IQ tests to identify supposedly "deficient" children and lock them away. The idea was to protect society from potential criminals and to prevent so-called undesirables from having children and degrading the American gene pool......

...... It reveals the danger in misguided science, the fearsome power of unchecked bureaucracies,

[little jeremiah]

FYI.

[RunningWolf]

Maybe Eugenics is 'the son of Darwin?'

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.”

[Boxen]

As much as many who visit this forum would wish it, guilt by association is not a valid argumentative tactic. If you wish to argue against the Theory of Evolution, or even Intelligent Design, attack the idea, not its associations.

[Psycho_Bunny]

The connection between creationists and blood-thirsty islamicists you always knew was there.....

[tang-soo]

You wanna find the Rosetta Stone, download the book Killer Angel.

[hosepipe]

Easy enough for a cave man bump...

[dr_lew]

Darwinism leads a very confused political existence. Most of the "social" and "psychological" Darwinistic literature is seen as rightist, since it is perceived on the left as lining up behind racist ideas on intelligence and European cultural superiority. Indeed, H. G. Wells ( whose History of the World is emphatically liberal in outlook ) thought that Europeans were on the verge of exterminating, or at least numerically dominating, other races.

Of course, various religious viewpoints are wont to vilify Darwinism since it seems to challenge their own foundation.

Arguments such as is presented here always remind me of Plato's Euthyphro, wherein Socrates asks whether the good is what God desires, or whether God desires what is good.

It seems to me that this sort of argument appeals to the latter conception, since Darwinism is held up as leading to bad behavior, as opposed ( implicitly ) to creationism, or some other religious viewpoint, which leads to good behavior. I've always thought that the appeal here is to an innate, or deeply and unconsciously held, sentiment of what is good and what is bad which transcends all doctrine.

[wireman]

Weak!

[Twinkie]

Many atheists base their disbelief in a Creator on the science of evolution. Many other people believe in a Creator who used evolution in such a method as to be very far beyond the human mind to comprehend, even when man uses all his logic and still yet crude instruments to conclude that he has now, indeed, found all the answers.

If a man doesn't believe in God, that is his choice. However, I do suspect, given some strange examples of human arrogance and its final tragic consequences in individual lives, that when a man declares with finality that he is an atheist and "does not believe in a Creator" that the Creator who once thought of and held him in that great mind beyond human comprehension, will at the point of no return declare and conclude that He also then does not believe any longer in the existence of the unbeliever.