Posted on 05/26/2017 8:46:18 AM PDT by fishtank
Darwinism has remade Western society—for the worse
Review of The Darwin Effect: Its Influence on Nazism, Eugenics, Racism, Communism, Capitalism, and Sexism
by John Woodmorappe
This work covers the effects of the Darwinian revolution on 19th and 20th century thinking. It is striking how pervasive and harmful this effect has been. Because this work is so rich in diverse topics, I focus on only some of them and concentrate on developments in the latter part of the 20th century.
Darwin was not simply a product of his time and culture. To the contrary, he effectively steered his culture. His ideas were aggressively promoted and they transformed societies. Moreover, the interactions of Darwinism with so many different strands of human thought were, and are, much too pervasive to be dismissed as ‘misunderstandings’ or ‘misinterpretations’ of Darwinism.
Bergman also makes it obvious that so-called scientific Darwinism and Social Darwinism cannot be dichotomized. The latter flows seamlessly and effortlessly from the former. In fact, ‘Social Darwinism’ was freely practised, not just by extremists but by mainstream biologists. Nor was it some kind of passing 19th century fad. Bergman comments: “The racist views of early Darwinists were widely supported, not just by a few renegade scientists, but by most of the leading biologists until at least the 1950’s” (p. 61).
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Mankind has interfered way, way too much with it’s own natural selection process.
Government has changed the selection process such that the least fit, least intelligent, and least productive and the poor can reproduce often and are supported by govenment. The other end of the spectrum doesnt seem interested in reproducing or defending their territory or women from invading ferals brought in by their own govts. Idiocracy is upon us.
“The American Civil War largely centred on racism and slavery”
Idiototic statement.
Does this man really think that racism did not exist before Darwin?
Darwin propelled Western Society into a world devoid of God, made it appear respectable and superior. “Without God, all things are permissible.”
History of Science Society statement[edit]
The statement issued in the History of Science Society Newsletter said that the three historians had been misrepresented by the film company’s selective reconstruction of Darwin’s voyage. They said that they had been led to believe that “the movie was being made to be shown as an educational film on Australian broadcast television and possibly elsewhere”, and had only been alerted to the true nature of the movie shortly before its release. They describe the interviews filmed with themselves as having been edited to highlight certain aspects of Darwin’s views and character. Browne’s description of Darwin’s childhood delight in making up stories to impress people was “used to imply that the same motive may have driven his scientific thinking.” The film uses the description of Darwin’s later views on racial inequality but, the statement says, omits Bowler’s account of the thesis that Darwin’s work was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery, as put forward by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. A comment by Sandra Herbert that “Darwin’s theory required explanation of many aspects of life” was, the statement said, edited down to imply that his theory required explanation of all aspects of life. They stated that this opportunity to reach out to a wider public had turned out differently from their expectations, and that academics perhaps “do need to be more aware of the fact that the media organisations are not always open about their underlying agendas.” While they probably would not have contributed had they known the true origins of Fathom Media, they thought that the producers had a point in that if academic historians refuse to participate when historical information is sought by organisations they disapprove of, they cannot complain if less reputable sources are used instead.[4]
CMI has responded to these criticisms by quoting more extensive transcripts of the interviews to show that Bowler made no mention of Desmond or Moore, and that Herbert’s views were not misrepresented.[5] On Bowler’s claim, they quote the director (Steve Murray) as saying, “. . . in my interview with Prof. Bowler he offered no reference at all that I or others could tell (even on re-examining the transcripts), to the work of Desmond and Moore, nor was there any statement that Darwin was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery, or anything to that effect”. In answer to Herbert’s claims, Murray said, “Professor Herbert seems to imply that somehow we twisted the meaning of her words, so that ‘many aspects of life’ was edited to imply ‘all aspects of life’. Yet where did she refer to ‘many aspects of life’? We simply included what seems to be a very clear statement that Darwin had to ‘explain everything!’ (Implied: ‘all aspects of life’)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Voyage_that_Shook_the_World
This is the real fact, we are in reverse darwinism.
Yeah, there were never any wars, Racism, violence, etc. and everyone lived in peace and harmony and then Darwin came along and wrote his book and ruined it all.
What does that mean exactly? You favor tossing cripples and old people out into the woods to fend for themselves?
Survival of the Unfit
Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (often referred to as The Theory of Survival of the Fittest) describes the positive effects resulting from any “pressure” on an animal species that removes the least fit among the species and allows only the most fit of the species to reproduce. Many of us are well aware of this “Survival of the Fittest” theory, but few are aware that Darwin also makes mention of the negative effects resulting from unlimited reproduction of a species’ least fit when the weak, the lazy, and the stupid are left unchecked.
We like to think otherwise, but our species, Homo sapiens-sapiens, isn’t that long “out of the trees” and the same laws of nature that affect all of God’s creatures apply equally to us. If we were to observe any other species that had been allowed to reproduce without limitations, we would know immediately what the consequences will be.
Whenever the weak; lazy; and stupid of a species are allowed to reproduce unimpeded by predators that feed off the weak; lazy; and stupid, they soon outnumber the strong, productive, and intelligent. When the weak/lazy/stupid dominate the gene pool, the entire population becomes weak/ lazy/stupid, and then the population collapses.
In the past, when these collapses occurred within human populations, they have been referred to as a “Malthusian Collapse.” Thomas Malthus, a Nineteenth Century Economist, thought these collapses were caused simply because past civilizations had reached a point where human populations could no longer produce sufficient food supplies to feed themselves, but he never pinned down the exact reason for the food shortages.
I now think some of these collapses of past human civilizations may have occurred when the unproductive weak/lazy/stupid greatly outnumbered the strong/productive/intelligent of the population. In other words, the majority of the population became too lazy to perform the work necessary to provide for themselves and what was left of the strong/productive/intelligent refused to continue to do it for them.
These collapses have occurred at frequent intervals throughout human history, and Western Civilization is, in my humble opinion, currently on the cusp of one of these collapses.
D.J. Taylor
“Does this man really think that racism did not exist before Darwin?”
Of course racism existed, but Darwin gave racists a pseudoscientific rationalization.
Actually you are condemning Christianity. It was Christianity that prevented defectives/etc from being “removed from the gene pool”.
So... we are to blame all of the world’s ills on a millennia-old scientific theory that Darwin finally articulated in a form that vastly enabled biological science to advance?
BTW, the tactic of calling scientific inquiry “Darwinism” is really cute. Those who try to discredit science by referring to it as a religion are saying more about their opinion of religion and the faithful than they are about the scientific method. Or, more simply, by saying that science is bogus because it is a religion, these “creationists” imply that all religion is bogus. Does that *really* promote the Christian faith?
Multigenerational welfarism.
I have no problem with the theory of natural selection alter species. I have some issues with Darwin’s theory of evolution and the origins of species.
Social Darwinism is a perversion of Darwin.
A bankrupt world view that has the added liability of being false.
#fakeworldview
Darwin was operating without knowledge of DNA, obviously. Genetic drift was a complete mystery to nineteenth century men, and I believe that twenty-second century men will look upon us as babes in the wilderness regarding the processes of gene expression.
“Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities.”
Charles Darwin
Nothing has changed in hundreds of years. We still have religious bigots so convinced of their belief in an afterlife that they feel compelled to kill women and children to secure their places.
If religious belief in a Supreme Being is based on faith.....
What is belief in Darwinism based on?
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.
