Posted on 02/10/2003 1:34:15 PM PST by Remedy
Yale trained Benjamin Spock, M.D., is the author of one of the bestselling nonfiction books of all time, a guide for parents titled, Baby and Child Care. First published in 1946, it has sold over 50 million copies and has been translated into 42 languages. His writings and ideas have influenced so many millions of mothers that he has been called affectionately the nation's "baby doctor" (Spock and Morgan, 1989; Bell, 1966). His influence in the world has been so profound that Dr. Spock was named one of the hundred most important people in the twentieth century by Life magazine (Maier, 1998, p. 298). He also is widely considered the most influential child care authority of the twentieth century (Britannica Year in Review, 1998).
During his long and distinguished professional career, Dr. Spock taught at several of the nation's leading institutions of higher learning, including Cornell University, the University of Minnesota, and Case Western Reserve University. Always a good student, he graduated first in his class at Columbia University Medical School (Lewkonia, 1998, p. 825). His lifelong interest in, and love for, people made him develop into an astute observer of the human condition (Philpot, 1979). His interest in this field motivated him to author a dozen books and hundreds of articles on child care and the major social problems of our age. He was active in helping humanity in numerous organizations until he died in March of 1998, a few weeks before his 95th birthday (Lewkonia, 1998; Collum, 1998).
Dr. Spock was first introduced to Darwinism at Yale University, and he referenced Darwin and his ideas several times in his books. Even in his classic work, Baby and Child Care, under the subheading, "They're repeating the whole history of the human race," Spock wrote that watching a baby grow is "full of meaning" because,
the development of each individual child retraces the whole history of the human race, physically and spiritually, step by step. Babies start off in the womb as a single tiny cell, just the way the first living thing appeared in the ocean. Weeks later, as they lie in the amniotic fluid in the womb, they have gills like fish. Toward the end of the first year of life, when they learn to clamber to their feet, they're celebrating that period millions of years ago when our ancestors got up off all fours. It's just at that time that babies are learning to use their fingers with skill and delicacy. Our ancestors stood up because they had found more useful things to do with their hands than walking on them (Spock and Rothenberg, 1992, p. 301).
Spock Recognizes the Harm That Darwinism Did to Society
Dr. Spock eventually recognized the serious harm that Darwinism had done to people's lives and to society in general (Bloom, 1972). The insight Dr. Spock gained is the story of many individuals of our time. His biographer, Lynn Bloom, stated that it was inevitable that Spock, "frustrated in his attempts to express fully his views on various social or political issues in magazine columns," would elaborate his conclusions in a book. His book, which Bloom calls "Spock's spiritual autobiography," was "the distillation of a lifetime of his varied thoughts on the problems of modern western man, Americans in particular." In this book he concluded that man has lost his belief in himself and his sense of direction because the concepts of evolution, of psychology, and of sociology have undermined the authority of religion and man's identification with God.
They have induced man to belittle himself, to conceive of himself as merely an animal divisible into a number of mechanical parts and drives (Bloom, p. 213, emphasis mine).
In his spiritual autobiography, Dr. Spock notes that he was reared in a family "with stern morals even by New England standards." He then admitted that he tried to free himself from these strict standards throughout his adolescence and young adulthood because he believed then that a "knowledge of biology, psychology, and sociology should offer sufficient guides for a modern man." His lifetime of reading, practicing as a pediatrician, college teaching, talking with parents, and researching the problems of Western society caused him to,
come to realize that the worst problems of America-illegal war, racial injustice, unnecessary poverty, for example are caused not by lack of knowledge or means [to solve these problems] but by moral blindness or confusion (1970, p. 207, emphasis and bracketed item mine).
Table I shows the increase in some major social problems that have occurred in the past half century alone. Obviously these problems are due to several factors, a major one being the secularization of society and what Dr. Spock calls "a moral blindness." Dr. Spock concluded that this moral blindness that produced many of our modern social problems was the direct result of modern secular teachings resulting from Darwinism, Freudianism, and other humanistic philosophies. In Spock's own words, the major reason for our most serious social problems was the weakening of the influence of religion that resulted especially from the influence of Darwinism and our increasingly secular society:
The teachers in the early colonial schools and universities of the United States were predominantly Protestant ministers whose principal aim was to teach religious principles and to train more ministers, who became the next leaders of the community. . . . By the second half of the nineteenth century the discovery of evolution and the development of various behavioral sciences further weakened the authority of the churches as educators. As the need for schools and universities mounted they were established increasingly by towns and states. Now the Supreme Court has forbidden in public schools even the vaguest of prayers (Spock, 1970, p. 207, emphasis mine).
Dr. Spock realized that many of the movements with which he had once agreed had caused an enormous amount of harm in our society. As a result of his insight, he admitted that he had "come full circle, in the end, to a feeling that it is crucial, in all issues, to consider the moral dimension" when trying to solve social and societal problems (1970, p. xiii). The major source of morality in the West, he realized, was the Judeo-Christian heritage, which has been seriously undermined by Darwinism, Freudianism, and the secular humanistic philosophies taught in our schools and by society as a whole. In his words, he "grew up with the century" (Spock and Morgan, 1989).
Unfortunately, Spock's insight about these issues came late in his life when there was little he could do about them. While he recognized that Darwinism was harmful, he had assumed the theory was supported by verifiable scientific facts. His own references to the alleged evidence for Darwinism have been refuted long ago. For example, we now know that almost every concept noted in the quote above from Spock's Baby and Child Care book was wrong. The theory that an embryo repeats its evolutionary history has been shown to be based on forgeries (Wells, 2000; Bergman, 1999; Frair, 1999). Furthermore, neither embryos nor fetuses have "gills like fish." Spock recognized that evolution had done much harm in society, but his belief that the evidence which supported evolutionism blocked him from doing much about the problem. This illustrates the importance of stressing current research, which shows that most of the icons used to support evolution are either outright frauds or based on extremely tenuous and debatable evidence (Wells, 2000).
Acknowledgments: I wish to thank Bert Thompson, Ph.D.; John Woodmorappe, M.A.; Clifford Lillo, M.A.; and Wayne Frair, Ph.D., for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. *Dr. Bergman is on the Biology faculty at Northwest State College in Ohio.References @ source url
No thanks. Retro can read it for me.
You just admitted you rejected something without knowing what it says.
VadeRetro is evolving from misleading to honesty?
Social darwinism can be reversed?
DEVO!
Remedy is not Ted Holden. You evos seem to thrive on being incorrect. But dimensio, (you know how easy it would be to change the s to a t?) before you start throwing real names around, I would remind you how upset a certain evo got when her real name was revealed. I would expect that suggesting real names is good reason for hitting the abuse button as well.
It was one of those random happenings. I don't think he meant to admit it. Retro does, at times, show a sense of humor and it is remotely possible that he was attempting humor- but then again,...
Right. Holden (a/k/a medved) gave the world his name in threads, like post 68 in this one, and his FreeRepublic home page gave a link to his own website, where his name was given.
You said:
The author is a fraud who attaches PhD to his name, despite the fact that the unaccredited Columbia Pacific "university" was shut down b/c it was simply a diploma mill, with no courses, and no justification for its degree programs. therefore, the author is a liar and a fraud.
The truth is:
Dr. Bergman rec'd a Ph.D. in Evaluation and Research with a minor in Psychology from Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
Therefore it is you, whattajoke, that is the liar and the fraud.
You guys are just toooooo easy.
Your table is hopelessly flawed
You are certain that your claim isn't hopelessly overstated?
Morality tries to answer the question, "why shouldn't I harm others if I want to?" There are several reasons people can give for why you shouldn't initiate force or fraud on others. Let's look, as an example, at how I might convince you not to steal:
1) Enlightened Self-interest - If I tell you not to steal because in the long run it destroys that which makes a thriving civilization possible, then I'm giving you a long-term, indirectly selfish reason not to steal.
2a) Eternal Damnation - If I tell you not to steal because this life is really just an audition for a second, infinitely long life that begins when this one ends - and there's this all-powerful God who will punish you forever, then I'm also giving you a long-term, directly selfish reason not to steal.
2b) Karma - If I tell you not to steal because you're going to be reincarnated after this life ends, and your status in the next life depends on your behavior in this life, then I'm also giving you a long-term, directly selfish reason not to steal.
3) Empathy - If I tell you not to steal because if you put yourself in the victim's shoes, wouldn't that feel terrible, then I'm giving you an immediate, directly selfish reason not to steal. This argument depends on you being able to feel empathy. (This is an effective tool for perhaps 98% of the population, and is one of the best tools for teaching morality to children. I think it's so effective because reason #1 is so compelling that it was selected for by evolution.)
4) Crime Does Not Pay - If I tell you not to steal because I & the government I support will getcha if you do, then that is an immediate, directly selfish reason not to steal (or at least to make sure you don't get caught).
5) Duty - If I tell you not to steal because "it's just wrong", then I'm invoking a reason that does not appeal to your selfishness at all. In fact, this argument doesn't appeal to any facts about the real world - it's essentially an arbitrary statement! This sometimes works with children if they recognize me as an authority figure. In that case they implicitly trust that I have a good reason to say it's wrong but for some reason I don't want to explain it to them. But adults demand explanations, so if I use this argument on an adult it basically amounts to me begging you to please please don't steal.
Notice that there is only one argument for moral behavior that does not ultimately appeal to your own self-interest, and that one is arbitrary! This is a pity, because at first blush #5 sounds like it should be the most compelling argument of all: It sounds so final & absolute.
Theists' moral systems are based on #2a, and sometimes #5. Usually they will acknowledge the truth of #1, though they don't think that's enough of a reason to be persuasive. In practice their system would have to depend on #2a, 3, & 4. Atheists' moral system is based on #1. We think that #2a & 2b are factually untrue or (unprovable & therefore moot). In practice our system depends on #1, 3, & 4.
Also notice that atheism & theism both have fundamental rationales for moral behavior. In practice both atheists and theists can agree that #3 & 4 must be supported by a healthy society.
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.