Darwinists Must Have A Dim Outlook On The Future Of The Human Race...

I don't fully understand the end of your post, but i will assume it is one of your formulaic rants. I am also not sure where my naivety is apparent.

As for the definition or weak or inferior, i will yeild to the Darwinists on this. Far be it for me to incorrectly interpret natural selection. I think that the same rules that apply to other living things within the realm of Darwinism applies to humans no?

Ah yes the early attempt at eugenics by the American leftist scientists and academics. Not so sure they were good Christians. They were progressives (leftists) with some backing by people with deep pockets. I remember reading about it. The movement was killed by Hiltler's lack of restraint, but it did survive somewhat under a new name of human genetics (using far less drastic measures).

innomen

17 Apr 2008 20:30

Comment

You're trying too hard, Mackenzie. I was aware that Galton's ideas were key in the spread of the eugenics movement. So what? Nothing I said is wrong. They are clearly an extension of Darwinian ideas. I accepted innomen's term Darwinism as a superficial description of the idea he expounds, though social Darwinism would be better. It is naive and foolish to say that eugenics ideas "trace back to" Francis Galton as if his ideas existed in a void and did not "trace back to" Darwin's own. No, the eugenics programs in America were supported by giant foundations funded by America's most famous industrialists, such as Rockefeller and Carnegie, champions of the kind of capitalism red in tooth and claw which innomen praises as being closer to the natural evolutionary state than communism; and supported by major public figures like Woodrow Wilson and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Was Woodrow Wilson an atheist? What was it Holmes said "three generations of imbeciles are enough", something like that as he ordered a woman sterilised? No, eugenics was widely supported in American society and the vast majority of Americans, then as now, were committed Christians. It is a repulsive spectacle to see you both attempt to dissociate yourselves from this history, by claiming it was carried out by "leftists" or "atheists". No, they were not leftists. They were rightists, and they inspired another much more famous rightist. And if you still doubt that Christians endorsed and supported the eugenics movement in America, I suggest you read the book "Preaching Eugenics" by Christine Rosen.

Comment

I find it hard to believe that you've done a serious breakdown and analysis of all the scientists involved in the American eugenics movement by religious affiliation and concluded that the majority were non Christians. More likely, that's something you just pulled out of the air. In any case, it's irrelevant since scientists can't do much on their own. No, the eugenics programs in America required the support of a broad swathe of American society, including church men and politicians. Then as now, a majority of those people were christians. You try and distribute the culpability for the eugenics programs equally between Europe and America, but this is dishonest. Virtually all serious attempts to put eugenics ideas into practice originated in America until Hitler was inspired by the American example. It was the Americans who took the initiative in propagating eugenics ideas around the world, holding international congresses and providing funds for "education" abroad - an early inkling of the kind of contribution America would soon make to the world.