On Mar 20, 8:21 pm, Paul Ransom Erickson
comcast.com>
wrote:> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:50:45 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>
hotmail.com> wrote:>>On Mar 17, 8:24 pm, Paul Ransom Erickson
comcast.com>
>>wrote:>>> On Sat, 15 Mar 2008 17:42:00 -0700 (PDT), Terry Cross
>
>>>>On Mar 14, 1:40 pm, Paul Ransom Erickson
comcast.com>
>>>>wrote:>>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:37:33 -0800 (PST), guardian Snow
eck.net.au> wrote:>
>>>>> The origins of the
>
>>>>>>species which when clearly understood, is a book that is in support of
>>>>>>enslavement (see Adolph Hitler).
>
>>>>> Wait a minute there. Do you mean to say that you understand it as
>>>>> many others did who were in favor of racial eugenics?
>
>>>>Darwin worked for the Royal Society of London, an organization
>>>>actively involved in eugenics propaganda.
>
>>> Darwin was a fellow of the Royal Society for a long time before he
>>> published his theory of evolution by natural selection. That is true.
>>> But I cannot find any indication that the Royal Society was actively
>>> involved in eugenics propaganda before Darwin published.
>
>>How carefully have you looked?
>
> Not very thoroughly, since I didnt' have the opportunity to do more
> than a few searches on google before responding. In these kinds of
> circumstances it's probably better if the person making the claim
> would provide some accurate leads.
>
> After all, it's hard to make an exhaustive search for the nonexistence
> of a society's goals.
>
>>> Do you mean to claim that Darwin came up with his explanation of
>>> evolution as a result of natural selection _in order_ to further some
>>> eugenics agenda on the part of the Royal Society?
>
>>Darwin did not "come up with" the Theory of Evolution out of thin
>>air.
>
> I never said he did. I said he came up with his theory of evolution
> _by natural selection_. Some people actually predated him in that --
> or so I have heard -- but they never did the real work, and just
> mentioned the notion in passing.
>
>>He solved a few problems, rationalized some difficult issues,
>>and provided volumes of examples for his speculations. But the Theory
>>had been in the wind for a long time, extending back to the early
>>Greeks.
>
> Of course -- many people had long believed in _evolution. Darwin's
> contribution was to provide a _theory of evolution, along with a lot
> of grunt work in support of it.
>
>>> That would not be _logically impossible, and as long as one is used to
>>> stomaching conspiracy theories, one could likely stomach that.
>
>>Do you have trouble with the assassination of Julius Caesar? Or do
>>you subscribe to the "lone dagger" theory?
>
> Everything I have heard makes it a conspiracy. You are right to chide
> me for talking about conspiracy theories as if they were always loony.
> Got me there. Sorry.
>
> Beside the point, but as far as subscribing to any theory about Julius
> Caesar's assassination, well -- I'm not a historian and I really don't
> much care. Nowadays the significance is in the cultural item, and not
> so much in the actual event.
>
>>People conspire. Conspiracy theory puts people in prison all the time
>>- conspiracy to rob banks, to murder, to defraud, to kidnap, and all
>>kinds of other things. Right now GWB accuses hundreds of millions of
>>Muslims for conspiring against the United States, and in particular,
>>thousands of Muslims for conspiring to commit terrorist acts against
>>the US. What exactly is your problem with conspiracy theory?
>
> What I meant was wacky conspiracy theories that seem to try too hard
> to see beneath the "surface" and that often seem to be mainly in the
> service of somebody's political outlook.
>
>>> But it
>>> would be pretty odd. Ideas of breeding people came into their own
>>> with the simple-minded extensions of extant racial prejudices that
>>> _followed Darwin.
>
>>Exactly.
>
> Yes.
>
>>> Yes, indeed, there were some idiots who misunderstood. Still are, it
>>> seems.
>
>>Misunderstanding Darwin is NOT the problem. Do you call Herbert
>>Spencer an "idiot"?
>
> In a sense, yes. He was showing the idiocy of his age.
>
>>Herbert Spencer, the Victorian sage who helped to popularize Darwin's
>>ideas, put it very bluntly in his 1865 book "Social Statics": "Blind
>>to the fact that under the natural order of things, society is
>>constantly excreting its unhealthy, imbecile, slow, vacillating,
>>faithless members, these unthinking, though well-meaning, men advocate
>>an interference which not only stops the purifying process, but
>>even ... encourages the multiplication of the reckless and incompetent
>>by offering them an unfailing provision."
http://www.nysun.com/article/27946>
>>>>The Smithsonian Museum was
>>>>one of their projects. They paid bounties for the bodies of
>>>>Australian Aboriginals to study and display.
>
>>> I have heard of that. They did that and worse. But Darwin was never
>>> in control of the Royal Society, and in any case the Smithsonian
>>> (among others!) did that after he was dead.
>
>>> It really is true that some numskulls took Darwin's explanation of
>>> evolution as a justification for all kinds of ridiculous behavior --
>>> mostly when they combined it with the _previous notion that what _is
>>> is what _should be.
>
>
>>> Darwin never claimed that might makes right or that existence means
>>> justification or any such silly thing.
>
>>Sorry to tumble your saint so ungracefully from the heavens, but you
>>are wrong here, too:
>
>>Charles Darwin himself foresaw the consequences of his theory when he
>>wrote: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by
>>centuries, the civilized races of man will certainly exterminate and
>>replace the savage races throughout the world."
>>
http://www.thinkandcaretank.org/sophisticated-primate.htm>
> First of all he is not a saint to me. I do not look to Darwin for
> "the truth" in any way -- either moral or factual. At this point it
> seems to me that Darwin could _almost have never existed, since other
> people were bound to develop the same insight anyway. It probably
> would have gone in slightly different directions, but natural
> selection would have been well known by now.
>
> Why do you think I look to Darwin as to a saint? And why are you
> trying to paint him as a devil? I think he was a very bright guy who
> hit on the right idea at the right time for it to spread, and the
> first one who was willing to do the in-depth work of investigating its
> plausibility.
>
> In any case, the quote you gave from him is pretty poor as evidence
> that he endorsed eugenics. It was in fact a description of what was
> happening at his time, both in North America and in Australia --
> especially Tasmania. I think that it would have looked to many people
> of his time like the "more civilized races" were bound to continue
> with that kind of thing, and could not be stopped.
>
> If I told you that humanity would certainly bomb itself out of
> existence, would that mean to you that I hoped we would?
>
> Anyway, here is the quote with a bit more context.
>
> "The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
> allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
> has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
> descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of
> much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general
> principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series,
> some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees;
> as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and
> the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant, and in a more striking manner
> between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But
> these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have
> become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by
> centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly
> exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At
> the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen
> has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and
> his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between
> man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the
> Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between
> the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
>
> Now there is obviously some egregious racism in there. What did I say
> about Darwin not being a saint? But I see no advocacy there for the
> elimination of the "savage races", any more than for the extermination
> of all apes more intelligent than baboons.
>
> Yes, Darwin said some things that we now see as awfully racist -- and
> that really were racist. It would have been hard at that time to find
> a European man who would not have said such things. Even Abraham
> Lincoln said things that were that racist.
>
> But the question to me is whether that kind of racism means anything
> for our evaluation -- today -- of the basic idea of evolution by
> natural selection.
>
> Would you disbelieve in Relativity if Hitler himself, instead of a
> refugee Jew, had proposed it in his spare time while menacing the
> world and attempting genocide? Would his other activities have
> mattered in your evaluation of the theory?
>
>>> And people who believe that what _is is what _should be are capable of
>>> all kinds of evil without reference to Darwin anyhow. They are free
>>> to misunderstand any idea that comes in handy!
>
>>Legal positivism is the philosophy of the US Supreme Court.
>
> I'm talking about the naturalistic fallacy, not legal positivism.
>
>>> By the way, did you know that Newton was the Royal Society's fifth
>>> president? And that Sir Ernest Rutherford was its eighteenth? The
>>> Royal Society reflected the philosophies of its times -- sometimes
>>> unfortunately -- and it sometimes did have its agendas. But I don't
>>> think it was an evil institution in itself.
>
>>What you THINK does not matter. First consider the facts, then derive
>>your opinions later, if at all. Reasoning from personal opinion to
>>sort your facts is a classic fallacy.
>
> I didn't say that what I thought should matter to you. I just said
> what I thought.
>
>>>>Darwin provided the rational basis for the Society's eugenics program,
>>>>much as Nietzsche did for Hitler.
>
>>> I doubt you know much about Darwin. I would bet very much that you
>>> know less about Nietzsche.
>
>>I stated how those writings have been used. In Darwin's case, Darwin
>>was in agreement with some of what you do not like.
>
> I never said I liked everything Darwin was in agreement with.
>
>>> Suffice it to say that Nietzsche for a time refused to talk to his
>>> sister because she was an antisemite. And that he generally despised
>>> government.
>
>>Those statements are irrelevant to the issues. Orthodox Judaism is
>>very racist and anti-Gentile, a fact that has contributed to much of
>>the problems Judaism has suffered through the centuries. You can find
>>the statements in the Talmud, in modern Judaic writings of rabbis, in
>>the New Testament, and in the Old.
http://www.daatemet.org/articles/article.cfm?article_id=119〈=en
>
> I think that is true as well. Religion is a bitch sometimes.
>
> But the statements I made are not, I think, irrelevant to the issues
> that you have raised yourself, which is the connection of some
> horrible later developments to the political -- or, even, emotional --
> commitments of some of their supposed predecessors. _I am the one who
> should be saying that such statements are irrelevant.
>
> Maybe I should have contented myself with that, instead of also
> arguing with you about the actual political and emotional attachments
> of Darwin...
>
>>> It is true that he had his notion of will to power, but what he meant
>>> by that was not something that was likely to fit into the mind of any
>>> Nazi.
>
>>Any person who considers all her enemies to be fools has fallen to a
>>fool's course. The Nazis rebuilt Germany to a world power on a ruined
>>economy in less time than it takes to set up a circus tent.
>
> I was too emphatic, but I do think that it would be hard for a Nazi to
> see Nietzsche's point in light of their own very, err, forceful and
> invasive notion of power. It was the intellectual and emotional
> precursors of Nazism that Nietzsche railed against most in the Germans
> as he saw them, and only deliberate blindness and manipulation (both
> of which actually happened) could make him seem to provide a rational
> basis for the Nazis.
>
>>> That notwithstanding, the Nazis did misuse Nietzsche for their own
>>> ends, much as they did with Jesus and Hegel and Plato and Bach and
>>> Beethoven and Wagner (sort of :/) any number of other great minds.
>
>>>>> I am going to have to ask you to show me the clear understanding that
>>>>> leads from Darwin to enslavement. I really never read Darwin saying
>>>>> that what looks like surviving OUGHT to survive, and therefore OUGHT
>>>>> to take control...
>
>>>>Darwin stated that pruning the less fit from the species strengthened
>>>>the racial stock. From there it is a short putt to the doctrines of
>>>>eugenics.
>
>>> I very much doubt that he said it. "Racial stock"? Oh, I very much
>>> doubt that he said it, since he was even reluctant to say that
>>> "species" had any objective meaning -- how much less, then, "races"
>>> and "racial stock"?
>
>>Do you know what "race" means and has meant through history, including
>>Darwin's time? For my statement to be correct, only one matching
>>definition is required. For your denial to be correct, no definitions
>>can match. Read all definitions of race.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/race>
> I do. I'm reading a book called _Theories of Race and Racism -- a
> Reader_ as we speak. Sometimes it has even meant people of like mind
> who were a subset of a phenotypically homogenous population. It has
> also meant many other things.
>
> In any case -- I feel that I have to say it again -- what Darwin
> thought about anything matters not at all now. He is a figure from
> history and if his memory -- and only his memory -- were to be
> entirely blotted out then it would not matter to science.
>
>>> I would be grateful if you could find me a quote to that effect!
>
>>It depends on the literalness you demand. Try this:
>
> Hooold on! First you want to tell me that your summary of what Darwin
> said wrt "races" did not have all the implications I thought it had
> because "race" has had many meanings -- and _then you let me know in
> no unclear terms that you were _not quoting from Darwin but using your
> own terms. In that case "race" ought to mean what it normally means
> today (although that is still not perfectly simple) instead of what it
> would have meant to Darwin.
>
>>Charles Darwin himself foresaw the consequences of his theory when he
>>wrote: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by
>>centuries, the civilized races of man will certainly exterminate and
>>replace the savage races throughout the world."
>>
http://www.thinkandcaretank.org/sophisticated-primate.htm>
> What makes you think that he thought it would be a consequence of his
> theory?
>
> And even if he did think so, he was wrong. So far -- and into the
> foreseeable future.
>
>>> And, in the end, all you did in the post I'm responding to was to
>>> create negative associations and horrible-sounding bad names. The way
>>> to refute evolution -- if that is what you would like to do
>
>>That had nothing to do with the purpose of the post.
>
> It had _everything to do with what I saw as the purpose of the first
> post of yours I responded to. In fact that was the reason I responded
> to it. Let me paste that post here to jog your memory:
>
>>Darwin worked for the Royal Society of London, an organization
>>actively involved in eugenics propaganda. The Smithsonian Museum was
>>one of their projects. They paid bounties for the bodies of
>>Australian Aboriginals to study and display.
>>Darwin provided the rational basis for the Society's eugenics program,
>>much as Nietzsche did for Hitler.
>
>
>
>>Darwin stated that pruning the less fit from the species strengthened
>>the racial stock. From there it is a short putt to the doctrines of
>>eugenics.
>
> I don't know what point that post of yours could have had other than
> to associate Darwin (and by implication natural selection) with widely
> loathed names and practices. And thereby to make people look at
> Darwin's theory with loathing. If the post had some other point, then
> I imagine you will be able to explain it to me.
>
> ----------------------------------
>
> A skeleton, the philosophers say, cannot slobber.
>
> Paul
My point is neither so simple nor so pejorative as you would have it
be. No one comes to any subject with a tabula rasa metal set.
Everyone has an axe to sharpen. One doctor is trying to cure his dead
father's cancer. Another student of music is trying to prove her
father is wrong. Darwin's colleagues had been in search of an
explanation for an Atheist universe for decades. Darwin was not
unaware of that mission, and his mission is clear in his text. When
he brought forward the "Origin," he was figuratively carried through
the streets of the world on the shoulders of his team mates. He had
brought home the bacon.
There was also much baggage with Royal Society, with the people who
supported Darwin, and with Darwin himself. I chided you for
speculating that Darwin would never say such a thing. You found
better examples than I did. The people of Darwin's time were all
racists, and that includes all people of all ethnic groups.
The veil of Eugenics is that it is based upon truth. Doctors quite
properly and ethically counsel people with debilitating genetic
disorders not to have children. Sperm banks advertise the
accomplishments and attributes of their donors, in contrast to the
average run of humankind. Is what they say so evil? And is what they
say so different from the Eugenicists?
The evil difference is in the implementation. When active murders of
the undesirable are involved, we have evil. When reproduction is a
matter of government enforcement or prohibition, we have tyranny.
When it is left to individual decision, no harm, no foul.
When I read Darwin, it is plain to me that much of his reasoning is
patched together with the desire that it be so. I find it in many
Evolution writers. And the readership is also overly forgiving,
permitting the most shameless speculation to pass as scientific fact
because, it seems, they too would wish it to be so.
To me, it passes the smell test as poorly as a braggart's story of his
trip to Vegas. He rolled a hundred 7s in a row, you see. Can you say
it is impossible? Therefore it must be true. But actually on his
forty second roll, he got a three; then after a harrowing series of
rolls, he paired the three and took the pot.
You want to call him a liar, but he cannot be disproved so easily -
you were not there.
Christians are regularly impugned for their "agenda" - their desire
for Evolution NOT to be true. They are not allowed to start out with
the objective of disproving Evolution - if they do, they are called
crackpots and anything they say is worthless. But Darwin and all his
rah rah followers actually started with the agenda to find an
explanation for a godless universe. Does that disprove their work?
It should be a balanced equation.
TCross
