>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

>>

>>>> hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>On Mar 14, 1:40 pm, Paul Ransom Erickson comcast.com>
>>>>>wrote:

>>>>>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 14:37:33 -0800 (PST), guardian Snoweck.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.

>>

>>>Herbert Spencer was not a numskull. Nor was Darwin's cousin, Francis
>>>Galton. Too bad, but you are just wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

>>

>>>> 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.