Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

[The_Barbarian]

I appreciate the lengthened version of the quote from Darwin. I see that this provides some evidence that Darwin saw a nobler potential in man. However one quote simply does not refute the fact that his son…

Is irrelevant. His son didn’t discover what Darwin did.

Now if he strongly condemned the movment on more than one occassion

Once is plenty, since we have no record at all of contradicting his position in The Descent of Man.

…perhaps we can say that Darwin was not a social Darwinist.

Ya think? How could he strongly denounce the position of the social Darwinists and be one of them?

I cannot judge Darwin’s intentions or understanding fully and I would not venture to make a statment condemning him completely as a person, but his ideas did open a venue for
evil interpretations and applications.

He condemns social Darwinism and classical eugenics, and you still want to construe him as supporting those ideas? Mary, at some point, you’ll have to make an accomodation to reality.

And scientists were involved in caring those things out.

In fact, as you learned, Darwinian scientists pointed out that they couldn’t work, even if they weren’t unethical.

I feel we have covered this topic enough.

If anyone, after all this has any respect for Ben Stein, I can’t see how. He blamed the Holocaust on the people who denounced the very idea, and said that those who showed it was unworkable, were the ones responsible for doing it.

Is it any wonder decent people are disgusted with him? He has effectively excused what the Nazis did, and blamed it on scientists. For an ideological advantage, he libeled Darwin and scientists.

Which was the topic here.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

For an ideological advantage, he libeled Darwin and scientists.

Which was the topic here.

What ideological advantage was he looking for in your opinion? I am interested in hearing what you think Ben Stein’s goal was. Do you think it is merely to blame the holocaust on Darwin? What would he gain from that?

The idea of ‘natural selction’ originated with Darwin. The idea that this change was a agent for evolving to a higher form implied to some scientists and philosophers that ‘unnatural selection’, or politically imposed selection might speed up that beneficial process, hence the eugenics movment came to be.

The debate has gone back and forth as to whether eugenics came out of Darwin or was merely an extrapolation based on Darwin. I would probably agree the later is more accurate. The fact that Darwin’s son and cousin and associates like Huxley, Spencer, were all involved with social Darwinism, shows the influence of his theories on that social movment. The association in part shows up by the fact that their writings and phrases become interchanged and shared. herbert Spencer initiated the term ‘survival of the fittest’, and Darwin used that phrase in his own later work. Adlous Huxley, the man who first coined the word ‘agnostic’, and who told Darwin that there would be a war upon religion with science triumphing: " Huxley’s early 1859 Science and Religion portrays theology and science as “mortal enemies” (though religion and science are “twin sisters”); in a letter about this lecture, he identified the irreconcilable enemies of science and invented the phrase “New Reformation”: “My screed was meant as a protest against Theology and Parsondom in general–both of which are in my mind the natural and irreconcilable enemies of Science. Few see it but I believe we are on the eve of a new Reformation and if I have a wish to live thirty years, it is that I may see the foot of Science on the necks of her enemies”– Thomas Huxley was known as Darwin’s 'Bull Dog".

I find it rather interesting that you have repeatedly said during this debate that ‘my people’ are the real liars. Why? Have you set science up as the chief enemy of religion like T. Huxley? why can’t you even admit that science has led to a lot of misery and death.

here is an example of present day social policy in Europe which has made euthansia of the elderly and sick a norm:
lifenews.com/bio2461.html
"Zurich, Switzerland (LifeNews.com) – The Switzerland-based Dignitas euthanasia center released figures Wednesday about the people it has killed since opening. Dignitas says more people than ever are opting to have the staff take their lives and that the number of Britons going there to die is on the rise.

UK residents are now in the top three nationalities of the people who go to the euthanasia center.

The euthanasia center has killed 868 in assisted suicides since it began and 335 people in the last two years alone. About 85 percent of the people who die there are foreign nationals with the rest hailing from Switzerland."

Can I say Darwin is directly connected to the euthanasia of mutes, mentally retarded and others in Nazi Germany? No, not directly. But his repudiation of the ideas leading to those policies
was weak, and you have provided only one quote from a man who wrote several books… His ideas, as formulated by the eugenics movmement, were used as a foundation for the policies in Nazi Germany and are still having ramifications today. The topic is not so much about Darwin as it is about ‘science’…what kinds of values does the way science expresses a world view create and sustain certain social and political policies?

Medicine, I consider to be an arm of science. The above example shows that rather than sustaining life, medicine has become a tool for death. other examples have been given here in regards to STD epidemics and abortion. We could go further into that area and talk about teen depression, suicide tendencies, low self esteem, umarried moms caught in cycles of poverty… all those things are forms of death.

I can give so many examples of the wrong use of science that in my mind it is pointless to continue this debate. The point is clear. Religion and science should not be pitted against each other, but should be working in concert to create a better world, not by formulating reasons for killing people but by formulating means of sustaining life.

I will end on a positive note however with this news article of a preborn child who was ‘born twice’, being taken out of the womb to be operated on and then replaced in the womb until fully formed there. Now that is something truly wonderful and a sign of how science can be used to bring life.

digg.com/health/Miracle_Baby_was_Born_Twice

In Christ,
MaryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian regarding Stein:
For an ideological advantage, he libeled Darwin and scientists.
Which was the topic here.

What ideological advantage was he looking for in your opinion?

The immediate goal was to sell tickets to his film. The more ideological goal was complex, but likely dates back to his service to Richard Nixon, who had some very rocky relationships with scientists in general.
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,910590,00.html

Authoritarians generally distrust scientists who are by profession a rather anarchistic bunch.

Do you think it is merely to blame the holocaust on Darwin?

That was tactical. I doubt if Stein is stupid enough to really believe it. It’s to rally those inclined to hate science, and to sell tickets.

What would he gain from that?

Money. Advancement for his extremist political agenda. And maybe a bit of revenge for perceived injury to his old boss.

The idea of ‘natural selction’ originated with Darwin. The idea that this change was a agent for evolving to a higher form implied to some scientists and philosophers that ‘unnatural selection’, or politically imposed selection might speed up that beneficial process, hence the eugenics movment came to be.

In fact, Darwin’s observation of unnatural selection (pigeon breeding for instance) tipped him off that something like it was happening in nature. But Stein didn’t blame pigeon breeders who were doing exactly what eugenics were advocating.

The debate has gone back and forth as to whether eugenics came out of Darwin or was merely an extrapolation based on Darwin. I would probably agree the later is more accurate.

C’mon, Mary. You now know that Darwin directly opposed such things, and that Darwinists showed that they couldn’t work. Let’s be realistic here.

The fact that Darwin’s son and cousin and associates…

…were not scientists and therefore not Darwinists, shows that your argument is wrong.

Thomas Huxley was known as Darwin’s 'Bull Dog".

And not a eugenist. You’ve tried to conflate Aldous Huxley with Thomas Huxley. Nice try.

I find it rather interesting that you have repeatedly said during this debate that ‘my people’ are the real liars.

Stein’s libels against scientists, for example. If you acknowledge that they are lies, and stop supporting them, then that will be no longer true.

Why?

It is the truth. That is sufficient.

Have you set science up as the chief enemy of religion like T. Huxley?

First, I showed you that science cannot be the enemy of religion. And again, you tried to conflate Julian Huxley (a nonscientist) with T. Huxley, not a eugenist and not an enemy of religion.

why can’t you even admit that science has led to a lot of misery and death.

Because the opposite is true. It has led to great improvements in people’s lives. Your life is better and happier because of science.

here is an example of present day social policy in Europe which has made euthansia of the elderly and sick a norm:

Blame the politicians and the people who are electing to end their lives. Get past Stein’s idea that people can be absolved of personal responsibility for their actions by blaming science.

Can I say Darwin is directly connected to the euthanasia of mutes, mentally retarded and others in Nazi Germany?

Since he specifically and forcefully denounced such things, you would be honest if you admitted that he had nothing whatever to do with it.

But his repudiation of the ideas leading to those policies
was weak,

Be honest, Mary. He wrote that such things were “evil.” And that was in an age when “evil” meant something.

His ideas, as formulated by the eugenics movmement, were used as a foundation for the policies in Nazi Germany and are still having ramifications today.

Even honest IDers know that’s a lie; from Dembski’s website:
**Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.

If there’s any real case to be made for Darwin and the holocaust it’s the opposite of what’s messaged in Expelled. The holocaust resulted from a failure to heed Darwin’s warning that eugenics could only be practiced by sacrificing the noblest part of our nature, the very part and only part that separates us from other animals. Those responsible for the holocaust, beginning with the eugenics movement in America, were the true animals. Those opposed were nobler than the animals.**
uncommondescent.com/intel…f-translation/

You do yourself a disservice by refusing to accept the truth, Mary.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarina:
And not a eugenist. You’ve tried to conflate Aldous Huxley with Thomas Huxley. Nice try.
Mary:
Not at all. I was quoting from Thomas Huxley:homas Henry Huxley FRS, (May 4, 1825 – June 29, 1895) was an English biologist, known as “Darwin’s Bulldog” for his advocacy of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/

If THH is known at all, it is as “Darwin’s bulldog.” This self-imposed nickname recognizes the collegiate defense–and enthusiastic offense–he undertook in support of the theory of evolution. In November of 1859, after reading the newly-published Origin of Species, he warned Charles Darwin that there would be mischief from anti-evolutionists, and that he himself, T. H. Huxley, was sharpening up his claws preparing to annihilate these creationist critics. He devoted himself for most of his career defending Darwinism and related notorious subversive subjects

“Darwinism” was defined in the Victorian period and is defined today not only as Darwin’s theory of natural selection, but as a comprehensive network that includes a philosophical view of the ethical as well as practical significance of scientific investigation; as a type of materialism; as agnosticism; as an assault on the historical validity of scripture; and as a model for the design of a political and economic community. To all of these, THH contributed, so significantly that though we are not aware of it, much of what educated free people think today of deity, or religion, of science, of their values, and of their own origin and future traces back to Huxley as originator, as he was the inventor of the word “agnostic” itself.
brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomashuxl109169.html
I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of ‘agnostic’.
Thomas Huxley

The doctrine that all men are, in any sense, or have been, at any time, free and equal, is an utterly baseless fiction.
Thomas Huxley

The scientific spirit is of more value than its products, and irrationally held truths may be more harmful than reasoned errors.
Thomas Huxley

Another view point by THOMAS HUXLEY:

Apropos of the origin of man I see no ground at present for pinning my faith to one theory or another. My purpose in mentioning the matter was simply that I might have an occasion of claiming my right to follow withersoever Science should lead and over and through whatever dares to stand in the way. After all it is as respectable to be modified monkey as modified dirt.

What I said about Genesis was after much consideration and I don’t think I have been unfair about it. I do not believe that any meaning which would be put by a disinterested Hebrew scholar upon the words of Genesis is in any way reconcilable with the most elementary and best established facts of geology. If it be permissible to turn and twist the Scripture phraseology as the rationalistic orthodox do on Genesis, I for my part will undertake to prove that rape, murder and arson are positively enjoined in Exodus. So again with respect to Joshua. I can quite understand that the Jew who wrote that book believed what he said and used the phraseology of his time. . . . But if he did so–what evidence have I that all the patriarchs and all the prophets were not equally influenced by the myths and modes of expression of their time–and how am I secure that their statements as to moral fact are not as warped by their theoretical views and prejudices?

Depend upon it there is no safety in trying to put new wine into old bottles.

aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/letters/59.html

I did not have the man confused with Adlous Huxley, the science fiction author.

As to your other continued rants about Ben Stein, I find that your complaints are not based on enough evidence. I repeat, so far you have produced one quote that may in some way say Darwin was not a proponent of eugenics, but it is a weak quote and for an articulate author of several book whose very son was president of the eugenics group in London, if he had strong feelings against eugenics I would expect much more from him. I think your building a castle on a grain of sand.

In Christ,
maryJohnZn Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

As to lying, there was a private revaltion from jesus saying this:

June 9, 2008
Monday St. Michael Shield of Truth Prayer Service

Jesus is here with His Heart exposed. He says: “I am your Jesus, born Incarnate.”

“My brothers and sisters, if you do not understand anything else about these Messages, understand that you must be living in the truth in order to reach Heaven. Countries that legislate against the truth do not find My favor. They do not prosper; many problems arise–natural disasters, financial downturns, disease and the like. Abortion is a lie, for it proclaims life in the womb is not life, but an object. Your country needs to repent and turn back to Me in order to avoid falling to ruin.”

Read and discern with prayer.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Yes, Mary, you were conflating Aldous Huxley with Thomas Huxley. Thomas described himself as an agnostic, certainly never as an enemy of religion.

And we have one applicable statement from Darwin on eugenics, in which he strongly condemns it as “evil.” If you are not willing to accept that, then it is clear that you feel the need to pretend Darwin supported eugenics whatever the evidence might be.

This is why decent people condemned Ben Stein’s blood libel against Darwin and Darwinists. He was accusing the very people who objected to Hitler’s program, of aiding Hitler.

As I showed you, even many IDers admit that it’s dishonest to do so:

From William Dembski’s website:
**Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.

If there’s any real case to be made for Darwin and the holocaust it’s the opposite of what’s messaged in Expelled. The holocaust resulted from a failure to heed Darwin’s warning that eugenics could only be practiced by sacrificing the noblest part of our nature, the very part and only part that separates us from other animals. Those responsible for the holocaust, beginning with the eugenics movement in America, were the true animals. Those opposed were nobler than the animals.**
uncommondescent.com/intel…f-translation/

Mary, at some point, you need to come to terms with all of this. Stein isn’t your friend; his accusations against science and his excuses for the Nazis are indefensible.

 

[buffalo]

Science and technology will not redeem mankind, Pope insists

 

[The_Barbarian]

It is not the place of science and technology to redeem mankind. If you won’t accept that from me, I’m pleased you will accept it from the Pope.

But that’s quite a bit off-topic. We are talking about Stein’s excuses for the Holocaust by libeling Darwin.

“It’s not our fault; it was those scientists who did it!”

 

[reggieM]

“Moreover,” the Holy Father added, “hopes for great novelties and improvements are concentrated on science and technology.” Yet, "it is not science and technology that can give meaning to our lives and teach us to distinguish good from evil,” he said.

The Holy Father points out the mistake that many people make – by “concentrating” their hopes for novelties and improvements on science.

Putting one’s ultimate hope in science is an evil – it’s a form of idolatry.

Sadly, many do this – and the Holy Father has warned us not to follow them. Science does not give meaning to our lives. In fact, science cannot teach us to distinguish good from evil.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Congratulations, Reggie. You finally got it.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Yes, Mary, you were conflating Aldous Huxley with Thomas Huxley. Thomas described himself as an agnostic, certainly never as an enemy of religion.
Mary: That is not what I saw at the website.
And we have one applicable statement from Darwin on eugenics, in which he strongly condemns it as “evil.”
mary: see below underlined portion
Barbarian:
As I showed you, even many IDers admit that it’s dishonest to do so:
Barbarian:
From William Dembski’s website:
**Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. .

uncommondescent.com/intel…f-translation/**

Mary:
Barbarian I went to the link you gave and the page was wiped out, as if the text had been erased. I looked at the right side of the screen and saw an article by the Methodist church which was an officila petition apologizing for their role in the eugenics movment.

Here is a portion of the statement from the site. Note how much the underlined portion sounds like the quote from Darwin we have been arguing over.
An Apology for Support of Eugenics (81175-C2-R9999)

Add new resolution:

"Eugenics, the belief that certain “genetic” traits are good and others bad, is associated in the public mind mostly with the extreme eugenics policies of Adolf Hitler, which ultimately led to the Holocaust. The study of eugenics did not begin with Hitler or his German scientists, but rather was first promoted by Sir Francis Galton, in England. Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, who expanded on Darwin’s theories and applied them to the human population. In an article entitled “Hereditary Character and Talent” (published in two parts in MacMillan’s Magazine, vol. 11, November 1864 and April 1865, pp. 157-166, 318-327), Galton expressed his frustration that no one was breeding a better human:

“If a twentieth part of the cost and pains were spent in measures for the improvement of the human race that is spent on the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle, what a galaxy of genius might we not create! We might introduce prophets and high priests of civilization into the world, as surely as we can propagate idiots by mating cretins. Men and women of the present day are, to those we might hope to bring into existence, what the pariah dogs of the streets of an Eastern town are to our own highly-bred varieties.”

Galton in the same article described Africans and Native Americans in derogatory terms making it clear which racial group he thought was superior. … Galton’s successor at the helm of the Eugenics Society was Major Leonard Darwin (1850-1943), a son of Charles Darwin. Leonard Darwin, who ran the Eugenics Society until 1928, made the transition from positive to negative eugenics, and promoted plans for lowering the birthrate of the unfit.

Built into the idea of natural selection is a competition between the strong and the weak, between the fit and the unfit. The eugenicists believed that this mechanism was thwarted in the human race by charity, by people and churches who fed the poor and the weak so that they survived, thrived, and reproduced. "Ironically, as the Eugenics movement came to the United States, the churches, especially the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians, embraced it.
Methodist churches around the country promoted the American Eugenics Society “Fitter Family Contests” wherein the fittest families were invariably fair skinned and well off. … Unlike the battles over evolution and creationism, both conservative and progressive church leaders endorsed eugenics. The liberal Rev. Harry F. Ward, professor of Christian ethics and a founder of the Methodist Federation for Social Service, writing in Eugenics, the magazine of the American Eugenic Society, said that Christianity and Eugenics were compatible because both pursued the “challenge of removing the causes that produce the weak. Conservative Rev. Clarence True Wilson, the General Secretary of the Methodist Episcopal Board of Temperance, Prohibition and Public Morals, and the man chosen to debate Clarence Darrow after William Jennings Bryan’s death, believed that only the white Aryan race was the descendent of the lost tribes of Israel…"Petition Text

Mary:
Iit seems other people have the same understanding of history as Ben Stein. Could you find your statement in Darwin’s books? When and where did he write it?..

In Chrsit,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yes, Mary, you were conflating Aldous Huxley with Thomas Huxley. Thomas described himself as an agnostic, certainly never as an enemy of religion.

That is not what I saw at the website.

“I saw it on a website, so it must be true.” is a dangerous conclusion. Thomas Huxley said he didn’t know if there was a God or not. But he was never an enemy of religion.

**If you have seen occasion to put any faith in what I tell you, believe me now when I say, that of all the miserable superstitions which have ever tended to vex and enslave mankind, this notion of the antagonism of science and religion is the most mischievous.

True science and true religion are twin-sisters, and the separation of either from the other is sure to prove the death of both. Science prospers exactly in proportion as it is religious; and religion flourishes in exact proportion to the scientific depth and firmness of its basis.**
Thomas Huxley The Builder vol. 17 (January 1859)

Huxley, as an agnostic, set science above religion. He was no theist, but he was certainly no enemy of religion.

Barbarian observes:
And we have one applicable statement from Darwin on eugenics, in which he strongly condemns it as “evil.”

Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics…

Barbarian I went to the link you gave and the page was wiped out, as if the text had been erased.

I checked. It is indeed removed. Apparently, someone realized that the statement was an indictment of Stein.

I looked at the right side of the screen and saw an article by the Methodist church which was an officila petition apologizing for their role in the eugenics movment.

Note how much the underlined portion sounds like the quote from Darwin we have been arguing over.

An Apology for Support of Eugenics (81175-C2-R9999)

How does this refute that fact that Darwin called such things “evil?” You’re telling me that your people embraced eugenics, and you want to blame Darwin? How does that differ from Stein’s blood libel against science?

Are you back to telling me that other people knew what Darwin thought, but that Darwin didn’t know what he thought? Be honest with yourself, Mary. Darwin denounced the eugenic program. Darwinists later showed it was based on a fallacy. Isn’t it time you just admitted the truth?

Could you find your statement in Darwin’s books? When and where did he write it?..

Darwin wrote that in The Descent of Man.
Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties

1871, I think. At any rate, can we have your promise to stop insisting that other people knew better than Darwin what he meant when he denounced eugenics?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Barbarian observes:
Yes, Mary, you were conflating Aldous Huxley with Thomas Huxley. Thomas described himself as an agnostic, certainly never as an enemy of religion.
“I saw it on a website, so it must be true.” is a dangerous conclusion. Thomas Huxley said he didn’t know if there was a God or not. But he was never an enemy of religion.

mary: I looked on several websites and saw similiar materials. The fact that he places science above religion tells a lot about him. The quotes I posted earlier also show a definite disdain for religious faith. he was a man that loved the intellect and facts.
Barbarian:
True science and true religion are twin-sisters, and the separation of either from the other is sure to prove the death of both. Science prospers exactly in proportion as it is religious; and religion flourishes in exact proportion to the scientific depth and firmness of its basis.

Thomas Huxley The Builder vol. 17 (January 1859)

Huxley, as an agnostic, set science above religion. He was no theist, but he was certainly no enemy of religion.

Mary:
That is an interesting quote but one has to wonder what he means when he says science flourishes in proportion to how much it is religious. is he saying that science is his religion?

Barbarian observes:
And we have one applicable statement from Darwin on eugenics, in which he strongly condemns it as “evil.”

Barbarian objected to the statement:
An Apology for Support of Eugenics (81175-C2-R9999) by the Methodist church.

Mary: The statement is not from a religious/opinion point of view. it is restating the facts of how the Methodist church became involved in ugenis and what arguments formed their involvement. They trace it back to Darwin. I was pointing out that their assesment of the historical facts were consistent with what I had found and that their articulation of Darwin’s view matched with the quote we had passed back and forth.

Barbarian:
Are you back to telling me that other people knew what Darwin thought, but that Darwin didn’t know what he thought? Be honest with yourself, Mary. Darwin denounced the eugenic program. Darwinists later showed it was based on a fallacy. Isn’t it time you just admitted the truth?

Mary: I am submitting a second post to answer this.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

COLOR=“red”]Mary:
I thank you for givng me the source for the quote. I was able to find it in Chapter 5 of the “Descent of Man”. I found in the context of the quote that while he did say it was the nobler part of man that aids the weak, he still implies a value system that sees the weak and their progeny as holding back the progress of man’s development. All through the chapter he points out which class of people he feels are superior, It is hard to read the whole chapter and come away with the conclusion that Darwin was a strong opponent to eugenics.

These sections were problematic for me in making the case Darwin oppossed the principals of eugenics:

• Hereditary Genius, 1870, p. 330.
  *(2) Origin of Species.(OOS)
  infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

"**In the breeding of domestic animals, the elimination of those individuals, though few in number, which are in any marked manner inferior, is by no means an unimportant element towards success.**This especially holds good with injurious characters which tend toreappear through reversion, such as blackness in sheep; and with mankind some of the worst dispositions, which occasionally without any assignable cause make their appearance in families, may perhaps be reversions to a savage state, …
( see how he and implies that eliminating
undesirable people would be a good)

Charles Darwin again:

"]In the case of corporeal structures, it is the selection of the slightly better-endowed and the elimination of
the slightly less well-endowed individuals, and not the preservation
of strongly-marked and rare anomalies, that leads to the advancement of a species.]*(2) So it will be with the intellectual faculties, since the somewhat abler men in each grade of society succeed rather better than the less able, and consequently increase in number, if not otherwise prevented. When in any nation the standard of intellect and the number of intellectual men have increased, we may expect from the law of the deviation from an average, that prodigies of genius will, as shewn by Mr. Galton, appear somewhat more frequently than before.

(Note:Galton was Dawin’s cousin who used
Darwin’s writings to form basis for eugenics movements I do
not see how Darwin is refuting him, rather he is using him
as a source of information.))

Charles Darwing again:
**“If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown,do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world. **We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilised nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; … We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence. …”

("inferior members of society? Not exactly  
arguing that each person is equal and each person should be 
   esteemed)

Chalrles Darwin commenting on birth/death rates, report by a Dr. Farr

"…On the whole we may conclude with Dr. Farr
that the lesser mortality of married than of unmarried men, which
seems to be a general law, “**is mainly due to the constant elimination of imperfect types, **and to the skilful selection of the **finest individuals **out of each successive generation”;

 (Again we see how Darwin feels he is able to
    say some people  are more desired than others. He 
     obviously sees natural  selection (survival) of the fittest 
     person to be key to social advancement.)

Mary:
In conclusion, your case that Darwin “denounces” eugenics
is based on one quote related to the care of the ill, and ignores the many passages that regularly separate out who Darwin judges to be the better, more desirable elements of society. he obviously favors intellectuals and physically vigorous people.
He seems to have a disdain for the poor. It is easy to see how eugenics groups rationalized their policies based on Darwin’s writings… .
Source for quotes:
infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

In Christ, maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

I thank you for givng me the source for the quote. I was able to find it in Chapter 5 of the “Descent of Man”. I found in the context of the quote that while he did say it was the nobler part of man that aids the weak, he still implies a value system that sees the weak and their progeny as holding back the progress of man’s development.

That was what the evidence at the time suggested. However, when genetics was discovered, it quickly became apparent that it wasn’t the case. This is what later Darwinists, like Punnett, showed; the whole idea was faulty.

All through the chapter he points out which class of people he feels are superior, It is hard to read the whole chapter and come away with the conclusion that Darwin was a strong opponent to eugenics.

If you think condemning something as “evil” is not opposing it, then I think you don’t know what the world “opponent” means. Be honest with yourself. Darwin condemned eugenics. He said the whole idea was evil. Yes, like most people of European descent at the time, he thought Europeans especially upper class Europeans, were superior. But notice that he didn’t ground his opinion of the worth of human life in that sense. He held that each human life was intrinsically valuable.

These sections were problematic for me in making the case Darwin oppossed the principals of eugenics:

That’s because you’ve accepted the premises of the eugenists; you think that ability is the same thing as worth. That’s not the case, Mary, a crippled or mentally handicapped human has the same worth any other human has. That is what Darwin is saying here. If you accept that we are all of the same worth to God, then Darwin’s opinion makes sense.

You’ve allowed the eugenist notion that differing ability or character among people determines their intrinsic worth, to color your judgment. What people can do, how disciplined they are, what their education is, none of that really matters. This is what Darwin was telling you in his book. You should take that to heart, Mary.

Darwin is a better Christian than you are, in that respect; he argues that it would be evil to let any die, regardless of their abilities. He acknowledges that humans differ in many things, but not in intrinsic worth.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yes, Mary, you were conflating Aldous Huxley with Thomas Huxley. Thomas described himself as an agnostic, certainly never as an enemy of religion.
“I saw it on a website, so it must be true.” is a dangerous conclusion. Thomas Huxley said he didn’t know if there was a God or not. But he was never an enemy of religion.

I looked on several websites and saw similiar materials. The fact that he places science above religion tells a lot about him.

Yes. It says he was an agnostic. Not hostile to religion. Indeed, respectful of it, even though he was not a believer.

The quotes I posted earlier also show a definite disdain for religious faith.

No, some other people said he did. But again, you keep tripping over what he actually said, to get to what other people said he thought.

he was a man that loved the intellect and facts.

Right. Common traits among Christians, not just agnostics.

Huxley’s opinion on religion:
True science and true religion are twin-sisters, and the separation of either from the other is sure to prove the death of both. Science prospers exactly in proportion as it is religious; and religion flourishes in exact proportion to the scientific depth and firmness of its basis.
Thomas Huxley The Builder vol. 17 (January 1859)

Barbarian observes:
Huxley, as an agnostic, set science above religion. He was no theist, but he was certainly no enemy of religion.

That is an interesting quote but one has to wonder what he means when he says science flourishes in proportion to how much it is religious. is he saying that science is his religion?

Since he makes a distinction between science and religion, I don’t see how you could do that. I think he meant that a spiritual sense was essential to approaching the unknown.

Barbarian observes:
And we have one applicable statement from Darwin on eugenics, in which he strongly condemns it as “evil.”

I don’t mind people apologizing for their sins; I do think they should avoid apologizing for imagined sins of others. As you see, if these Christians had followed Darwin’s argument, they would not have accepted eugenics. But they didn’t, and so they feel compelled to apologize.

The statement is not from a religious/opinion point of view. it is restating the facts of how the Methodist church became involved in ugenis and what arguments formed their involvement. They trace it back to Darwin.

Yes, it’s sort of an excuse; “It’s not really our fault; we think Darwin was behind it.” But, as you learned, he called that kind of thinking “evil.” Too bad they didn’t think of it that way. If enough of them had followed the advice of Darwin and his fellow scientists, there wouldn’t have been anything to apologize for, um?

I was pointing out that their assesment of the historical facts were consistent with what I had found and that their articulation of Darwin’s view matched with the quote we had passed back and forth.

Be honest with yourself, Mary. By now, you know what Darwin wrote about it. You know that he nowhere approved the eugenic program, and that he called it “evil.”

You’ve decided that Darwin should be a scapegoat for the evils your people committed.

Barbarian asks:
Are you back to telling me that other people knew what Darwin thought, but that Darwin didn’t know what he thought? Be honest with yourself, Mary. Darwin denounced the eugenic program.
Darwinists later showed it was based on a fallacy. Isn’t it time you just admitted the truth?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

That was what the evidence at the time suggested. However, when genetics was discovered, it quickly became apparent that it wasn’t the case. This is what later Darwinists, like Punnett, showed that the whole idea was faulty.

If you think condemning something as “evil” is not opposing it, then I think you don’t know what the world “opponent” means. Be honest with yourself. Darwin condemned eugenics. He said the whole idea was evil. Yes, like most people of European descent at the time, he thought Europeans especially upper class Europeans, were superior. But notice that he didn’t ground his opinion of the worth of human life in that sense. He held that each human life was intrinsically valuable.

(Hardly!)

That’s because you’ve accepted the premises of the eugenists; you think that ability is the same thing as worth. That’s not the case, Mary, a crippled or mentally handicapped human has the same worth any other human has. That is what Darwin is saying here. If you accept that we are all of the same worth to God, then Darwin’s opinion makes sense.

You’ve allowed the eugenist notion that differing ability or character among people determines their intrinsic worth, to color your judgment. What people can do, how disciplined they are, what their education is, none of that really matters. This is what Darwin was telling you in his book. You should take that to heart, Mary.

(Darwing was making the judgement calls, not the eugenics people…but they definitely got their cure from Darwin)

Darwin is a better Christian than you are, in that respect; he argues that it would be evil to let any die, regardless of their abilities. He acknowledges that humans differ in many things, but not in intrinsic worth.

mary:
Re-read his quote, he doesn’t say this in ragrds to groups he feels are inferior…

mary:
You have the greatest ability to read past things and only see what you want to see.

Your arguments don’t hold up against the number of quotes i presented showing Darwin held ideas that placed judgements on various classes and groups of people. He even expressed satisfaction that there were natural and social elements that
would bring about a higher death rate in some groups whom he considered inferior.

–Rather like Pianka expressing the idea that it would be btter if the majority of the human population was elimintaed for the planet and seeing that there are natural means like ebola that could speed up that process.

Even if they both don’t openly say there should be social or biological means that are used to do the dirty jub, they both agree on the ‘goodness’ that could result. THAT, my dear barbarian friend, is what makes them dangerous as dispensors of
ideas leading to social models and philosophies.

And that is why they are both espouse evil ideas.

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[The_Barbarian]

Re-read his quote, he doesn’t say this in ragrds to groups he feels are inferior…

Mary, I don’t see how you can come to any other conclusion than Darwin’s obvious rejection of eugenics:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

As I said, you’ve bought the eugenic argument that one’s ability is one’s worth. Darwin did not. And so he called eugenics “evil.”

Your arguments don’t hold up against the number of quotes i presented showing Darwin held ideas that placed judgements on various classes and groups of people.

Indeed. But as you see, he held that such judgements did not determine intrinsic worth. That is why your people had to apologize for accepting eugenics. If they had listened to Darwin, they would not be in that position. (In actuality, I doubt if they knew he had denounced it)

Rather like Pianka expressing the idea that it would be btter if the majority of the human population was elimintaed for the planet

That’s not what he said, was it Mary? He said nothing about people being “eliminated.”

He said it would be good if there were fewer people. He did not say that it would be good if people were eliminated, did he? Why did you add that on your own?

And that is why they are both espouse evil ideas.

I do not see how Darwin’s characterization of eugenics as “evil” could be construed as support for it. I think you desperately want to think your people aren’t really to blame for this, and hoped to use Darwin as the scapegoat.

It won’t work. Accept what is and go on.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

And so he called eugenics “evil.”

HE NEVER CALLED “EUGENICS EVIL. …Never saw the quote. Sorry… You are using another quote and surmizing from the quote that is what he meant. read the other quotes I provided… If he was so against the movement wouldn’t there be one quote where he specifically says 'eugenics” is evil?

That’s not what he said, was it Mary? He said nothing about people being “eliminated.”

NOT WHILE THE CAMERA IS ON ANYWAY>>>

But how about this, I looked up the evolutionist who was Hitler’s man to see if he had connections to Darwing. Sure enough, it seems he was influenced by Darwin’s “Descent of Man”.

This is what I found at this website:
answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i2/haeckel.asp

Ernst Haeckel

First published:
Creation 18(2):33–36
March 1996
Browse this issue

by Russell Grigg

Known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog on the Continent’ and ‘the Huxley of Germany’, Ernst Heinrich Philipp August Haeckel is notorious as the scientist who perpetrated fraud upon fraud to promote the theory of evolution.

Born at Potsdam, Prussia (now Germany), on February 16, 1834, Haeckel studied medicine and science at Würtzburg and the University of Berlin, and was professor of zoology at Jena from 1865 until his retirement in 1909. The turning point in his thinking was his reading of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, which had been translated into German in 1860.

In a letter to his mistress, written when he was 64 and had acquired the nickname of ‘Der Ketzer von Jena’ (the gadfly of Jena),1 he explained how he began as a Christian but after studying evolution became a free-thinker and pantheist. 2

Darwin believed that Haeckel’s enthusiastic propagation of the doctrine of organic evolution was the chief factor in the success of the doctrine in Germany.3 Ian Taylor writes,

‘He became Darwin’s chief European apostle proclaiming the gospel of evolution with evangelistic fervor, not only to the university intelligentsia but to the common man by popular books and to the working classes by lectures in rented halls.’4

In these he used enormous backdrops showing embryos, skeletons, etc., which has led to his presentation being described as a sort of ‘Darwinian passion play’!

The Imaginary Monera

Haeckel’s drawings of the eating habit and reproductive cycle of an alleged Moneron to which he gave the scientific name, Protomyxa aurantiaca, as published in his book The History of Creation. The extent of the detail is the measure of his fraud, as the Monera did not then and do not now exist!
Haeckel’s enthusiasm for the theory of evolution led him to fraudulently manufacture ‘evidence’ to bolster his views. He was the first person to draw an evolutionary ‘family tree’ for mankind. To fill the gap in this between inorganic non-living matter and the first signs of life, he invented a series of minute protoplasmic organisms which he called Monera… (plural of Moneron).

In 1868, a prestigious German scientific journal published 73 pages of his speculations, with more than 30 drawings of these imaginary Monera, as well as scientific names such as Protamoeba primitivia, and the process of fission by which they allegedly reproduced,7 even though his detailed descriptions and elaborate drawings were totally fictional,…

Later the same year, Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s champion in England, reported finding something that fitted Haeckel’s descriptions in mud samples that had been dredged from the bottom of the north Atlantic and preserved in alcohol. Huxley named them Bathybius haeckelii.8

Unfortunately for Huxley, Haeckel, the Monera, and the theory of evolution, in 1875 a chemist aboard the expeditionary ship discovered that these alleged protoplasm specimens were nothing more than amorphous gypsum, precipitated out of sea-water by alcohol!..

…The Infamous ‘Fish Stage’ in Human Embryos

Haeckel’s doctored drawings of dog and human embryos as they appeared in his book The History of Creation25

…
Of all Haeckel’s dubious activities, that for which he is most famous, or perhaps most infamous, is his promulgation of the totally erroneous theory that the human embryo is initially identical with that of other mammals and then goes through a series of stages where it has gills like a fish,13 a tail like a monkey, etc. Sometimes called ‘the law of recapitulation’ or Haeckel’s term ‘the biogenetic law’, this idea has been summarized in the mouthful, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’, which means the development of the individual embryo repeats its alleged evolutionary history.

The first thing to say about this dictum, is that ‘law’ it is not! The idea is now known to be completely false. /COLOR

In Christ,
maryJohnZ

 

[MaryJohnZ]

As if we need more evidence to add to the mountain that piled up in this forum linking Darwin to the reugenics movement, let us look at this article:

In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing “lower human types.” He criticized the Jews for bringing “Negroes into the Rhineland” with the aim of “ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization.” He spoke of “Monstrosities halfway between man and ape” and lamented the fact of Christians going to “Central Africa” to set up “Negro missions,” resulting in the turning of “healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of s.” In his chapter entitled “Nation and Race,” he said, “The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.” A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."59

The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others.19

straight-talk.net/evolution/hit.htm

---

And in his speech to the London eugenics group leonard Darwin
quotes hid father Charles with great enthusiam.

The following excerpts are from an article that appeared in Commonweal.
The complete text can be found here:
commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=1871

The article makes clear the undeniable link between Darwinian thought and eugenics –

The Gentle Darwinians
What Darwin’s Champions Won’t Mention
…

The enthusiasm Nietzsche expresses in this passage is for eugenics, a theory of biological determinism invented by Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s first cousin. However extreme Nietzsche’s recommendation might sound today, by the first part of the twentieth century eugenics came to be widely practiced. In 1933, little more than thirty years after Nietzsche’s death, the Hereditary Health Courts set up in Nazi Germany were enforcing a rigorous policy of enforced sterilization; to a lesser degree, similar policies were carried out in societies from the United States to Scandinavia.

In 1912, in his presidential address to the First International Congress of Eugenics, a landmark gathering in London of racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world, Major Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son, trumpeted the spread of eugenics and evolution. As described by Nicholas Wright Gillham in his A Life of Francis Galton, Major Darwin foresaw the day when “eugenics would become not only a grail, a substitute for religion, as Galton had hoped, but a ‘paramount duty’ whose tenets would presumably become enforceable.” The major repeated his father’s admonition that, though the crudest workings of natural selection must be mitigated by “the spirit of civilization,” society must encourage breeding among the best stock and prevent it among the worst “without further delay.”

---

OK…how big to you want to build this mountain of evidence Barbarian?
Your single quote, with its’ unclear specific reference to eugenics, is fast becoming a grain of sand.

I think this discussion should end.

In Christ,
MaryJohnZ