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

To: Oztrich Boy

I would disagree with you on your analogy as to the first clause of the second amendment not meaning what it says. The problem with the first clause of the 2nd amendment is not it’s plain English meaning but rather that it gives sophists some wiggle room to build a deceptive argument around.

In any case your point is that I am not understanding Darwin’s meaning on that phrase (in regards to “favored races”. I’m not closed minded to that possibility so please educate me on the meaning.

FWIW I’m marginally invested in the evolution debate at best...I do think that Darwinism arrives at conclusions that require a materialist philosophy as a starting point (rather then being some sort of evidence for materialism). That the species that existed on the earth changed over time I think is well supported by the fossil record and that natural selection occurs is supported by observation, however I think that idea that speciation is caused by natural selection of “random” mutations is not supported without a philisophical bias.

In the bigger picture I think it’s irrelevant to the question (that most people involved are concerned with, that is) in regards to the existance of a transcendent Creator. I think there are more important scientific and philisophical areas to explore in regards to this question (such as the Big Bang theory as well as the Hard Problem of Consciousness in philosophy).

At any rate I do believe it is clear that the eugenics movement was inspired by “enlightenment” thinking and materialist philosophy with Darwin’s theory being no small part of that.

If I have in fact misunderstood Darwin’s meaning then it appears that the eugenecists did as well. So what was the meaning?


240 posted on 10/23/2009 7:30:13 AM PDT by Free Descendant (Palin Power!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies ]


To: Free Descendant
In any case your point is that I am not understanding Darwin’s meaning on that phrase (in regards to “favored races”. I’m not closed minded to that possibility so please educate me on the meaning.

I'd be happy to do so. For this is one of the repeated lies of the creationist movement - that Darwin's use of the term "races" connotes racism.

Here the term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races—the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants".

You can read the relevant pages here.
242 posted on 10/23/2009 7:48:53 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies ]

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