More on Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
by BradfordComments about Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed abound. Expelled the Movie: Opening Night Box Office Exceeds Expectations at Darwinian Fundamentalism has this to say:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed brought in an estimated $1.2 million on its opening night. Even though it was #14 in terms of number of screens, it was #8 in overall revenue, and #4 in per screen average (among those on the Friday estimate chart). Most box office sites I looked at predicted it would end up with 2.0-2.4 for the whole weekend (Friday to Sunday) with an average of 2.2. It is on track to get at least $3.5 million for the weekend, which would be 60% above expectations.
'Expelled' film draws applause at ISU tells of a standing O for guess who? Guillermo Gonzalez!
It features interviews with Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor in astronomy at Iowa State University, who claims he was denied tenure for his outspoken views on intelligent design, and Hector Avalos, professor of religious studies at ISU, who has been critical of the teaching of intelligent design in science classrooms.
Those who made it into the theater before it filled up generally responded positively to the film. They greeted the ending credits with applause and, after Gonzalez wrapped up a brief discussion following the film, treated him with a standing ovation.
Then there is this serious article, Darwin and the Nazis, by Richard Weikart who had this to say.
Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and some other Darwinists are horrified that the forthcoming documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, will promote Intelligent Design to a large audience when it opens at over a thousand theaters nationwide on April 18. Ironically, their campaign to discredit Ben Stein and the film confirms its main point, which is to expose the persecution meted out by Darwinists to those daring to criticize Darwinian theory.
One aspect of Expelled that troubles Dawkins and some of his colleagues is its treatment of the ethical implications of Darwinism, especially its discussion of the historical connections between Darwinism and Nazism. Isn't this a bit over-the-top, suggesting that Darwinism has something to do with Nazism? After all, Darwinists today are not Nazis, and Darwinism has nothing to do with anti-Semitism.
April 20th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I saw the film last night. A sparse audience. I thought there were good and bad points to the movie.
The bad:
1) There seemed to be a concerted effort to polarize people into two groups: If you were a Darwinist, then you were a God-hating atheist, who didn't have moral absolutes, didn't believe in free-will, and didn't believe that life had any meaning. If you were an Intelligent Design advocate, then you admitted that some evolution had taken place, but were skeptical about how much.
Missing were the people in the middle: Theistic Evolutionists like Ken Miller (even though he doesn't think of himself as one). And even more surprising, Michael Behe was missing — that's right folks. No Michael Behe in the movie. Why? I can only speculate, but I think it's because in his last book, The Edge of Evolution, Behe argued vigorously for Common Descent, and admitted that Natural Selection acted as a filter on variations. This would mean that Behe admits that the majority of what Darwin proposed is correct. And the last thing this film would want is a leader of the Intelligent Design movement who admits that.
It was important in this film to paint Darwin supporters as people on the wrong side of an issue that could lead to Nazism. No middle ground allowed. Therefore no Miller. No Behe.
2) Even though there was no explicit political message, there was an implicit one: The intolerance of ID in academia was compared to the Berlin wall, that kept out freedom. Over and over again we were shown the image of Ronald Reagan demanding that the wall be brought down. The implication? If you want tolerance of ideas in academia, you better vote Republican.
Now if you think Republicans are more tolerant of ideas than Democrats, then you wouldn't mind this. I don't think they are, so I had a problem with it. And I think the fact that Theistic Evolutionists aren't in this film, and that Behe himself isn't in this film speaks volumes about the amount of tolerance we could expect from this crowd.
The good:
1) Regardless of how many people have or have not lost their positions because of their support of or even just tolerance of ID, it's clear that there is an atmosphere of fear among academics regarding ID. It is important — especially if you don't have tenure — not to look like you have any sympathy for ID. Perhaps this film will serve as a wake-up call to Academia, that if they don't lighten up, the backlash could be severe. And let's hope they get the message and lighten up.
2) I thought the implications (not logical implications, but causal implications) between Darwinism and Eugenics was explored rather convincingly. Let's hope it's something that remains a dark period in our past. But it served as a good reminder of how some theories can be taken to very evil extremes.
Comment by Bilbo — April 20, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Interesting display of comprehension by Weikhart. Looks like the guy is finally getting the point. This is quite a climb down for the DI gang. The Darwin=Nazi; the invention of the Darwinism and Darwinism=Nazism is a neoCreationist/ID gambit, clearly post Phil Johnson. The OldCreos - who continue to be the real game in pseudoscience town don't care for such nuances, and are pretty clear that it is the text or bust - which is why RTB isn't happy over the movie. But now after Weikhart's book is all but forgotten like one of those numerous tracts and pamphlets that are churned out every year, and organizations such as the Anti Defamation League who you would think actually know something about the Holocaust have condemned these farcical accounts passing off for history, the DI has begun to check itself, being at the point of diminishing returns. So now the hurried backpedalling and even the grudging concession that Darwin wasn't anti-Semite. Gonzalez is the new Dembski on hte block, determined to smash his credibility to a pulp. I was all along for over three years sure that Gonzalez was never going to win tenure. When I first heard of the guy (>3 years back) I took a look at his website at IaSU and was surprised to find an almost blank page with just his coordinates. No record of publications, no reports of research group (turns out he did not have any) and totally AWOL at some of the most important cosmology conferences - including the most important conference of this century - the KAVLI-CERCA that happened at Case hosted by Lawrence Krauss in 2003. Turns out (as is well explained on expelledexposed.com) that the guy jumped the shark a while ago.
Comment by agam — April 20, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Bradford cites Weikart:
The links from Darwin and his family to eugenics to Hitler's holocaust are strong. So are the links from American eugenicists - and the negative eugenics laws (i.e., forced sterilization) they were able to pass - to Swedish policies to Hitler's holocaust. All backed by 'sound' (and well funded) scientific and medical support.
I don't see why it should bother Dawkins that the links exist. They're documented history. Cold Spring Harbor - the original home of the Eugenics Records Office - offers a very good presentation to the public here. American Margaret Sanger was no slouch in the eugenics politicization movement.
The politics included propaganda, and that meant getting the churches involved too. And they were. Eugenics spread its diseased seed through whole populations of supposedly civilized nations and infected law and policy across the world. Hitler's aberration could easily have been predicted, given that genocide isn't exactly something new to humans. There have been more than a few attempted genocides since 1945, some of them counting more victims than Hitler's gas chambers did. They just don't call it eugenics and no longer try to justify it scientifically. It's just good ol' "Ethnic Cleansing."
Hitler himself was the aberration, as his National Socialism was a political aberration - there were plenty of authoritarian fascists around to help him out, but they didn't call themselves "Nazi." I think it's a mistake to neglect any of the actual history of Darwinism > Eugenics > Holocaust web of connections. The politicization of science has proven itself dangerous in more ways than one. The politicization of religion has always been dangerous.
Comment by Joy — April 20, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Interesting review Bilbo, thanks.
Comment by The Pixie — April 20, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Bilbo:
agam:
Agam, I can see the tactic clearly here, it's not very clever. The link explored (Bilbo says, I haven't seen the film) is Darwinism > Eugenics, not Darwinism=Nazism. Genocide was just policy in Germany and its occupied territories, sort of like the Department of Health. It was not National Socialism. The US had forced sterilization laws on the books in some states into the 1990s. Eugenics is no respecter of borders, it just gets its widest application in states that implement eugenics as law and policy. As Adolph Hitler did in Nazi Germany in 1934 with strong encouragement from American, British and European eugenicists (like the Darwin-Keynes families and like-minded elites) and scientists.
I doubt this sort of sleight-of-mind will be convincing to anyone who's seen the film and thus knows the actual connection trail. It's not convincing to me, since I knew the actual connection trail before this film was ever made. So… who are you trying to convince?
Comment by Joy — April 20, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
UD's DaveScot has seen the light:
Link: http://www.uncommondescent.com...
Comment by Raevmo — April 20, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Hey, Darwin's right - we're not mere animals. In fact, we're damn distinct from them, regardless of whatever biological history we may have. And justifying philosophical or (a)theological viewpoints on the basis of 'science tells us we're nothing special and the concept of special value for human life is a myth' is an abuse of science.
A shame the eugenics boosters of the time (including quite a lot of scientists) were so ignorant of such reasoning.
Comment by nullasalus — April 20, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
nullasalus
Yes, if only Hitler had paid closer attention to Darwin's work instead of the Bible.
Comment by Raevmo — April 20, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Indeed - humans are inherently special and noble creatures, and evil is an objective reality. Anyone who disagrees is an anti-darwinian crackpot.
Comment by nullasalus — April 20, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
How poor of you. Have you read Mein Kampf?
Comment by todd — April 20, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
I think it would help if we were to dispassionately analyze the relationship between Darwin's theory of evolution and eugenics. Eugenics is not a science, but rather a technology. That is, the application of scientific knowledge to the deliberate alteration of nature in the pursuit of a goal or goals desired by humans.
In this sense, therefore, all technologies (including eugenics) are a direct outgrowth of a system of social morals (i.e. ethics). From our perspective today, we almost universally decry that branch of technology known as eugenics, but we do this mostly as the result of our historical knowledge of what the technology of eugenics resulted in: at the very least, injustice, and at the very most (and most horrific) genocide.
It would do everyone thinking about this issue good to consider what the early supporters of eugenics thought about their new "technology" and why they supported it. We can look back now and condemn them all, but without the perspective gained from having the history of the 20th century behind us, I believe that such blanket condemnation does not give either the founders of eugenics (nor its more modern critics) enough credit.
"By their fruits shall ye know them" is just another way of saying that empirical knowledge of the effects of a particular system of thought is generally superior to a theoretical understanding of that same system, but devoid of the lessons of experience. Knowing what we know now about the political and social effects of eugenics, would anyone (including any evolutionary biologist I know) advocate it, especially in the ways in which it was advocated during the first two decades of the 20th century? I believe that the answer is no; that would certainly be my answer.
However, I also believe that one might come to a different conclusion were one to put oneself in the position of, say, Ronald Aylmer Fisher, one of the founders of the "modern evolutionary synthesis". Fisher was an extraordinarily creative evolutionary biologist, a brilliant mathematician, and a dedicated eugenicist. He was also a life-long and very devout member of the Church of England who often penned essays on christian faith that were published and widely read by his fellow Anglicans.
How would a partisan for either side of the EB-ID debate reconcile Fisher's devotion to evolution, eugenics, and Christianity? Only be taking a much less simplistic and more nuanced view of all three of these very human endeavors.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 20, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Okay, I'll bite:
Here's how eugenics played out. Many of the intellectual elite were concerned about the future of humanity. In a state of nature, natural selection would weed out those who were physically and mentally impaired. But because of hospitals, medicine, and charities, it was not only possible for the physically and mentally impaired to exist, but they could have children is spread their "bad" genes through the population. In fact, researchers would find evidence that the mentally defectives seemed to reproduce at faster rates that those who were not. A sense of alarm set in and the elites had to come up with a solution. We clearly could not return to the state of nature, so the solution was to find ways to better mimic natural selection "“ targeted birth control and sterilization.
Comment by MikeGene — April 20, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
MikeGene said:
Sounds like a public policy issue to me. How is this Darwin's fault? If anyone here thinks ignorance would have helped prevent eugenics, they should remember that Spartans practiced it long before Darwin.
Comment by olegt — April 20, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Did I say it was Darwin's fault? No. So why did you ask me that question?
Comment by MikeGene — April 20, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
And why blame marxism for any deaths? People were going to war and killing their enemies long before ideological zealots arrived on the scene - ho hum, nothing to talk about.
… What's being pointed out is the flawed justification of philosophy and policy that was once touted as "scientific" and practically identical with scientific truth itself. I think the (ab)use of scientific theory/discovery to pass particular political policies and philosophies as truth itself is something worth pointing out. Today's abuse of science was the past's 'use of reason and enlightenment values for the betterment of society'.
Comment by nullasalus — April 20, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
nullasalus wrote:
Precisely my point. Both Will Provine and I devote an entire lecture to the subject of eugenics in our evolution courses at Cornell. However, I should point out that there are really two forms of eugenics, both conceptually and historically: "positive" eugenics (in which people with supposed "good" qualities are encouraged to have children) and "negative" eugenics (in which people with supposed "bad" qualities are discouraged from having children). Both of these are obviously technologies (by my previous definition) as both involve value judgments (i.e. "good" versus "bad").
In virtually all discussions of eugenics, it is the "negative" version that is emphasized, usually for obvious historical reasons. However, as my friend Will Provine is careful to point out, "positive" eugenics is alive and well and living…well, just about everywhere. Only now we call it "genetic counseling". Despite its new name, it differs not very much from what R. A.Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and even such "monsters" as Francis Galton were promoting around the turn of the 20th century.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 20, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Allen:
Excellent comments to frame the discussion. And yes one person's positive eugenics is another's negative eugenics.
Comment by David — April 20, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Here's an interesting question: would germ-line genetic modification qualify as "positive" or "negative" eugenics? For example, I am very, very myopic (virtually legally blind). The form of myopia that gallops in my family is the result of an autosomal recessive allele. Both my wife and I are myopic; hence, by simple Mendelian genetics, all of our children probably will be as well. If the technology to accomplish it were available, would altering myself (or my children) to reverse or eliminate the effects of this allele be considered to be "positive" or "negative" eugenics?
Here's another one: My wife and I have four children. When she was pregnant for the fourth, she was tested for the presence of the cyctic fibrosis allele, and (like approximately one in twenty of all people of northern European descent) was discovered to be heterozygous. None of our three children have cystic fibrosis, but when my wife's genotype was discovered, a flurry of activity commenced, in which I was tested as well (it turns out I'm homozygous "normal", not heterozygous), and we underwent some genetic counseling.
Here's the question: if I were discovered to be heterozygous, which of our various options (up to and including aborting our son, if he were discovered to be homozygous for cystic fibrosis) would be considered to be "positive" or "negative" eugenics, and why?
BTW, our son, Draco, just had his first birthday…and he doesn't have cystic fibrosis.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 20, 2008 @ 9:38 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Allen Macneill,
While it's admittedly a crappy site, Wikipedia has this to say about 'genetic counseling':
Genetic counseling is the process by which patients or relatives, at risk of an inherited disorder, are advised of the consequences and nature of the disorder, the probability of developing or transmitting it, and the options open to them in management and family planning in order to prevent, avoid or ameliorate it.
Sounds a lot closer to to negative eugenics to me, unless you're arguing that by discouraging people with 'bad' genetic qualities from having children counselers thereby encourages people with 'good' genetic qualities to reproduce. But then the distinction loses its meaning. I have certain problems with some of the practices and philosophies involved with "genetic counseling" - but I think neither of us wants to engage that particular argument at the moment.
Maybe you can make the case that those countries where citizens having children is being directly encouraged by the government (Japan, Russia, Germany, etc) is 'positive eugenics'. Then again, those cases have almost everything to do with increasing the young workforce, and much less to do with concern for improving the gene pool.
For my money, the justifications for eugenics suffered most with the very introduction of gene therapy. We have a very far way to go with that and related technology, but the simple existence of a way to cope with gene-related illnesses without recourse to selection through reproduction (or sterilization) makes the entire history all the more ridiculous, positive or negative. Along the lines of sterilizing people with blurry vision in the hopes of a world where everyone has 20/20 vision - and then along comes LASIK.
Comment by nullasalus — April 20, 2008 @ 9:40 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Considering the sorry human record of genocide, discrimination, slavery, war, and artificial famine as oppression any thinking animal would be insulted to be grouped with humans. And Allan thanks for the clarification about science vs. technology
Comment by agam — April 20, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Mike,
I quoted your comment. My question, however, was addressed to you as well as others on this thread, as should be obvious from the next sentence.
Comment by olegt — April 20, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Inadequate. Since I never claimed it was Darwin's fault, why are you asking me this question?
Comment by MikeGene — April 20, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Allen MacNeill:
No, eugenics was a sociopolitical policy of population control devised by elites, aimed at 'lesser humans', and heavily propagandized to the public in the name of patriotism, rationalism, science, humanitarianism, ethnic purity and prejudice against minorities, immigrants, Jews, the physically and mentally handicapped, even thousands of orphans (but only when they didn't have trust funds). A war against the poor and weak. Those who got to decide who were thoroughbreds and who were curs are the same ones who had the political and socioeconomic power to impose their policies under color of law.
There was nothing noble about it when Francis Galton invented it, there was nothing noble about its grotesque abuse of science, there was most certainly nothing noble about its corruption of medicine, and there was nothing noble in Adolph Hitler's strongly cheered "Final Solution." He was directly supported by US, British and Continental eugenicists (as well as financiers bankrolling eugenics everywhere in the white world). Eugenics as a means to "improve the species" must involve coercion. It won't work any other way.
If science can give me the means to find out if my unborn child will have CF or Downs, I can avail myself of it if I can afford health care. Then I can make my own decision for my own reasons. There is your technology. It can be used for good or evil - that is a sociopolitical question of power. Who does it serve?
If it serves me and mine, it's not eugenics. It's personal choice. If it serves some governmental, elitist sociopolitical and/or economic power, my choice is forfeit. THEN it's eugenics.
Comment by Joy — April 20, 2008 @ 10:06 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
It would seem to me that genetic counseling is more akin to negative eugenics than positive eugenics:
BTW, proponents of the new eugenics like to frame their agenda as being about "choice." But doesn't Provine deny the existence of free will?
Comment by MikeGene — April 20, 2008 @ 10:13 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Allen_MacNeill:
A good, workable definition.
They certainly reflect our values. The same technology can be viewed differently with the passage of time due to a shift in morals or a gain in knowledge as you are about to point out.
Having the advantage of historical perspective it is easy to see that eugenics supporters had an unduly optimistic view of the character of those who would be in a position to practice eugenics. The Nazis are the outstanding example. Who would have forseen such a perverted view of altering Nature? Who could have forseen the racial assumptions that would determine views of fitness? Were eugenics supporters told of the possibility in advance they would have surely dismissed the informant as half-mad. Perhaps humans are not very good at anticipating the moral fiber of their fellow humans. That seems to have been the case.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Joy:
It was a sociopolitical policy. I suppose Allen might say the isms you mentioned were the values that determined why and how we applied the tools at our disposal to attain the goals.
Comment by Bradford — April 20, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
What's wrong with you, Mike? If you don't think you should answer my question, don't answer it!
Comment by olegt — April 20, 2008 @ 10:39 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Here is something I would like to throw out to provoke thoughts.
Should a scientific observation that has bad political side effects be denied, discouraged, etc?
Apparently, Darwin warned against applying his scientific observations for political purposes. Separating philosophy and science is for more than just the reasons Gould forwarded with his NOMA concept.
Another thought provoking point that is more on topic…
The Spartans practiced human eugenics long ago.
Mass killing for racial purity was so prevalent long before Darwin was born, that there is a term for it, Pogrom.
The Nazi's banned Darwin's writings and undoubtedly burned his books.
Hitler never mentioned Darwin or Darwinism.
Once you get past the recent attempt to popularize a Group Think meme, how can an independently thinking individual rationalize that Darwinism is to blame for the pogrom that occured under Hitler?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 20, 2008 @ 10:47 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
What's wrong with you, olegt? Since I don't believe this is Darwin's fault, nor claimed it wasDarwin's fault, why did you ask me, "How is this Darwin's fault?" Given what I wrote (and you quoted), I found your question to be incoherent. Yet now you can't even explain why you asked me that question. Why is that?
Comment by MikeGene — April 20, 2008 @ 10:56 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
TP,
If you're arguing that eugenics was practiced in disconnect from, or even in opposition to, darwinism - by all means, let's see the evidence. From Francis Galton to Ernst Rudin, the links are certainly strong. The simple fact that social darwinism was called social darwinism (Not as some ID plot, but way back in 1944, if the wikipedia is accurate) provides quite a big clue.
I don't think you have to engage in group think to deny the links between darwinism and eugenics policies. You just have to be devoted to creating a nice fantasy-world for yourself.
Science should be kept distinct from philosophy, whether one agrees with it or not. So says I, at least. One problem is that some people are so devoted to darwinism for how it can be abused in the service of philosophical or (a)theological abuse, that they feel compelled to deny what else it can be (and has been) used to support. After all, if it can justify a disliked philosophy/policy as well as a favored one, what's the point, eh?
Comment by nullasalus — April 20, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Mike:
They've been at it all day with this bait-and-switch routine. Almost like it's a Talking Point they've been fed.
Comment by Joy — April 20, 2008 @ 11:37 pm
April 20th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Calm down, professor.
What are you talking about?
Mike already responded but that doesn't mean I'm not going to say something.
Go bark at someone else, or at least know what you're talking about.
What's wrong with Mike? What the hell is wrong with you?
But let me get this straight… "if you don't think you should answer my question, don't answer it!". Does that make any sense to you? If it did warrant a response (which it doesn't), and if he wasn't going to respond do you think he would need further prodding from you to not answer it?
Comment by Doug — April 20, 2008 @ 11:41 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:07 am
Bradford:
"We?" It wasn't me, Bradford. And it probably wasn't you (unless you're a lot older than I thought!). All the sociopolitical eugenics of the 20th century didn't eliminate poverty. It didn't eradicate brown people or black people, it didn't conquer mental or physical illness, it didn't cure genetic diseases. It can never cure disability or illness or age.
You'd think these self-important intellectual elites could easily have figured this out before it started, as well as foreseen its inevitable ugly conclusion. I get the strong feeling that they're just not all that bright.
Comment by Joy — April 21, 2008 @ 12:07 am
April 21st, 2008 at 12:28 am
It's true that _some_ American Christians jumped on the eugenics bandwagon - and those were the "social gospel" [i.e., liberal / progressive] Christians. IOW, the American Christians who enthusiastically championed eugenics are the same Christians who sneered at orthodox Christian tenets. Orthodox Christians - Catholics and evangelical Protestants - vigorously opposed eugenics, and were derided as ignorant, superstitious, and unscientific by their "enlightened" Christian "brethren."
The term "pogrom" is a Yiddish Russian word coined between the years 1881 and 1885, during the anti-Jewish riots that swept Ukraine and southern Russia following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II. The Russian pogroms were the handiwork of anarchists, whose anti-Semitism reflected social, economic, and political - not religious or racial - resentments.
The new eugenics of this century may just achieve what 20th-century eugenics didn't….
Comment by turandot — April 21, 2008 @ 12:28 am
April 21st, 2008 at 12:28 am
Allen MacNeill wrote,
Does Peter Singer count? As a more sophisticated exploration of the abolition of man? In Singer's case we are not superior to other mammals, so there is no apparent breeding plan vis a vis eugenics, but culling defective children up to a certain point after birth plays a part is his overall ethic.
Comment by todd — April 21, 2008 @ 12:28 am
April 21st, 2008 at 6:43 am
Mike, let's try one more time.
My question wasn't directed to you specifically. It was addressed to everyone commenting on this thread. Your comment contained a nice summary of the situation and was used as a jumping-off point. Since you don't put the blame on Darwin, you are not disagreeing with me and there's no reason to make a federal case out of it.
Comment by olegt — April 21, 2008 @ 6:43 am
April 21st, 2008 at 7:25 am
I have an honest question please don't laugh. Since Zack and others often argue that ID is indistinguishable from Darwinism biologically i.e. it does not make any distinguishing predictions and since ID apparently has none of the bad political side affects of Darwinism what would be the harm in allowing folks to hear about it when discussing origins?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 21, 2008 @ 7:25 am
April 21st, 2008 at 8:12 am
That's not quite my position. ID is very poorly defined. Some definitions, e.g. Last Thursdayism, are vacuous, vague and unfalsifiable. Other definitions, such as the Explanatory Filter, are merely fallacious. In most discussions of ID, the definitions become confused and equivocal.
As long as it's not in the context of science, but in the context of philosophy or religion, I would certainly have no objection. Or even as speculation, but only rarely do those discussions have scientific merit.
Comment by Zachriel — April 21, 2008 @ 8:12 am
April 21st, 2008 at 8:20 am
Thought Provoker wrote:
Here's some thought-provoking stuff for you: read this and see if you can find for yourself anything that sounds like Darwinism.
I predict you will still twist yourself into logical pretzels in the attempt to disassociate Darwinism and the Nazi philosophies.
How could they possibly do that? They never once mentioned the word eugenics!
At any rate, so what? Why aren't the Spartans doing that now? For that matter, why did the ancient Romans stop abandoning their unfit infants around 300 A.D.? Why was there approximately 1500 years of no institutionalized eugenics? Why all of a sudden did the German people think it was fine to start it up again?
Try provoking your own thought before you start on others' thoughts.
No. They burned Haeckel's version of Darwinism because his denial of spirit was in conflict with their neo-paganism.
That's hilarious, TP. I came to my conclusions about the links between Nazism and Darwinism long before I registered for this blog. Your unquestioning repetition of Nick Matzke's dribblings shows who is actually engaged in groupthink here.
Comment by angryoldfatman — April 21, 2008 @ 8:20 am
April 21st, 2008 at 9:00 am
olegt,
If thats really what you intended why did you lose your cool and bark at Mike for not answering.
You should work on your consistency.
Comment by Doug — April 21, 2008 @ 9:00 am
April 21st, 2008 at 10:02 am
I think Allen is spot on in saying the issues are more nuanced. It is not a well acknowledged fact Darwin's theory succeeded in part because of the strong support of the Christian clergy. Even today, look at where Darwin's theory is being promoted, "Christian" schools like Baylor, SMU, Wheaton, etc. etc….
Stein had an axe to grind for his fellow jews. He sincerely believe Darwin was responsible.
For myself, I think one must be cognizant that the Jews of the Old Testament were the most notorious practitioners of genocide, and this makes genocide part of the Judeo-Christian history, whether Christian like it or not, and whether Christians can come to the terms that God may have commanded genocidal acts….
So now that I've come clean for my side, I think it is only fair to say, Darwin helped make it fashionable to practice Eugenics. After all, he came with the authority of science. His writings helped make it a "scientific" issue not a moral one…
As far as who's at fault for the holocaust, it was the Nazi's not Darwin. Darwin's ideas however reinforced their beliefs that it was a scientifically sound practice, that they were doing humanity good.
Stein was concerned that if Darwin's theory is not scientifically correct, why should it be used to influence medical practice in the form of Eugenics? As Berlinski stated in the movie, if Darwinian theory is widely accepted as "scientific" there would be a chance to repeat Nazi Germany Eugenics. That is the concern the movie is raising.
If indeed Darwin is right, then Eugenics is the right route. If he is wrong, then the issue becomes moot. Perhaps given the life or death issues, it might be worthwhile to be a bit more circumspect in elevating Darwin's theory to the status of other well accepted truths like universal gravitation…
As far as the erosion of the human genome, I think selection and eugenics can only slow it down, I don't think genetic entropy is reversible, much less can we build superior races without genetic engineering (intelligent design).
Cornell professor John Sanford, who was once upon a time a Eugenecist at heart, and vigorously practiced Eugenics in his plant breeding lab, now believes that eugenics cannot reverse the inevitable effects of genetic entropy. Other geneticists believe the human race will go extinct shortly (shortly in terms of geological time). So Sanford is not the only scientist with a grim outlook for humanity. Sanford argues that humanity's last hope would have to be in the form of a miracle given the immutability of genetic entropy. Eugenics cannot possibly rescue humanity…Sanford echoes my views.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 21, 2008 @ 10:02 am
April 21st, 2008 at 10:14 am
Finally, we'll have to come to terms with Eugenic issues eventually. Modern medicine is helping accelerate the persistence of genetic diseases like diabetes. The relaxation of selection pressures through application of medicine could arguably be responsbile for accelerated deterioration of the genome. John J. McFadden author of Quantum Evolution (which is really a bad intro to QM and biology), I think makes a good case for the negative effect of non-Eugenics on the genome. However, instead of Eugenics, he advocates re-engineering. I'm skeptical of our technology to achieve this at this time…..
The question comes however, re-engineering means engineering toward the original design. What then is the original design? Hmmm…..
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 21, 2008 @ 10:14 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:08 am
Darwin argued quite the opposite, that refusing to help the weak could lead to "deterioration in the noblest part" of human nature.
You're confusing a scientific theory with the use of a technology to advance a particular goal.
"Superior" is in the eye of the beholder.
"Genetic Entropy" is refuted by the plain evidence of historical evolution.
In the long run, we're all dead. "” John Maynard Keynes
That's a common misunderstanding of evolution. Different traits have different advantages in different environments. Even though Einstein may have made a very poor hunter or warrior doesn't mean he was genetically inferior.
Comment by Zachriel — April 21, 2008 @ 11:08 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:15 am
The two are in no way equivalent. Nothing that Darwin wrote actually actually called for genocide. Science does not create 'oughts'. Whereas God, as you nicely pointed out, did exactly that: call for genocides.
People are always confusing the two: Using a theory to justify an action versus a theory actually calling for an action. Science can only be found in the former category, while religion can clearly be found in both.
Comment by hrun — April 21, 2008 @ 11:15 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:25 am
todd asked:
Yes, Indeed, Peter Singer does count; in fact, he is ideal evidence for precisely my point. Singer (whom I have debated in print on several occasions) is not an evolutionary biologist. On the contrary, he is a philosopher; in fact, he's an academic ethicist. Ergo, he is talking about academic ethics, not evolutionary biology.
Find an evolutionary biologist (and preferably one whose work is either field or laboratory based) who currently supports anything like the eugenics of the early 20th century, and I'll show you a person whose understanding of the connection between science and ethical philosophy is seriously misguided.
BTW, I completely disagree with Peter Singer's version of "naturalistic" ethics, not the least because he, like many before him, commit what G. E. Moore called the "naturalistic fallacy". That is, he believes that one can derive an "ought" statement (i.e. an ethic) from an "is" statement (i.e. a science). In this, I believe he is seriously misguided, and as such provides a nearly perfect example of the kind of perversion that comes of conflating "is" and "ought" statements.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 21, 2008 @ 11:25 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:33 am
mikegene asked:
Yes, he does. And he also points out that, just because someone has a choice and makes a decision as a result of that choice, it does not logically follow that such a choice is "free". On the contrary, what Will argues is that there is no logical connection between making a choice and the necessity that such a choice is "free". He argues (and I agree with him) that every choice made by humans is constrained by a combination of our biological heritage and our experiences (i.e. our "nature" and our "nurture"), and is therefore not "free" by any meaningful definition of that term.
I would go further and argue (on purely logical terms) that the term "free will" is itself an oxymoron. Where does one's "will" come from, if not from one's biological heritage and life experiences? And, if this is the case, how can one's "will" be "free"
Furthermore, Will does not argue that, having made a choice that is not "free", one cannot therefore be held responsible for the consequences of such a choice. On the contrary, what determines if one is responsible for having made a choice is the mere fact that one has done so, not whether in some abstract sense such a choice was "free".
What, precisely, does the "free" aspect of "free will" mean, anyway? "Free" from what, exactly?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 21, 2008 @ 11:33 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:37 am
Sal:
I don't know how much the human genome is deteriorating due to "genetic entropy" (?), but it has also been known for thousands of years' worth of eugenics applied to crops, livestock and human aristocracy that artificial management and inbreeding causes deterioration of the stock and concentration of genetic weakness/disease. This is why really successful breeders out-crossed to a stronger 'mutt' every few generations. Variation is natural and healthy, offers generations the ability to present different adaptive capabilities to an ever-fickle environment.
Human elites (aristocracy, ruling and capital classes) are highly selective and strongly inbred over the generations of their rein. Some royal houses only recognized brother-sister offspring as hereditary successors (Egypt). That couldn't last, and didn't. The so-superior white guys then expanded to close cousin inbreeding. Spread idiocy, general weakness and hemophilia through the castles of Europe and Russia. Even in the 19th and early 20th centuries the aristocracy habitually intermarried cousin to cousin. Their general fertility has long been notoriously bad, and THAT is the "problem" human eugenics was invented and promoted to address.
See, the healthily diverse breed like… er, rabbits. This scares the elites, who suckle on inequality from the moment they're born and don't much like to share (with siblings any more than with the rabble). It's not difficult - for someone to have more, several or many others must have less. Basic economic theory (and Keynes didn't invent it). So long as the small ruling classes can convince their vassals and serfs that they're just property and don't deserve more than toil and struggle, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Only the rich don't get more numerous in the process. The poor do.
Eventually, as history demonstrates in repeating cycles, the source of wealth (the people who work) rebels against imposed poverty and inequality and a new ruling class takes over for another cycle of the same old same old same. Eugenics may have been propagandized as encouragement for the upper classes to have more children, but that was never likely to work. They're too selfish and greedy. So the actual situation was - and still is - one of preventing the working class and below from breeding as much as possible, the 'defective' from breeding at all. Figuring that if the social structure didn't tolerate compassion, altruism and do-gooding among the population toward the sick, handicapped and aging, the population could have a better quality of life by not spending meager resources on each other. All without the rich having to give up any of their wealth or privileges (or have to share what they have with more offspring)! Watta scam.
The folly of human eugenics was obvious to anyone who claimed the title of "intellectual," since it's well-documented in human history and socioeconomics. Thus something 'New and Improved!' had to be added in order to sell the same old deception to the masses. Darwin supplied the 'New and Improved!' label to something old and stale (and many times demonstrated terminally dumb).
Curing diseases - genetic or acquired - is just medicine. It's not eugenics unless it is misused to harm people. Genetic engineering is never going to replace humanity with Barbie/Ken (or GI Joe). People are way too fond of begetting their offspring the old fashioned way. But genetic engineering could definitely be used to halt the breeding ability of humanity en masse. At which point medicine could sell the antidote to those deemed 'fit' to reproduce. All very carefully medically managed start to finish, for every child born.
Before writing this off, something like that has already been developed - the patent is jointly held by Monsanto and the USDA - it's called "Terminator Technology." It wasn't deployed because it makes plants sterile and transgenes are highly promiscuous. Just a little tweaking could have such a gene-packet targeted to human sterility, and it could be put into the whole world's staple food crops. Humanity could be sterile in less than 5 years. THAT is eugenics in action! Everything else is just an excuse for bigotry, cruelty and perpetuation of gross inequalities while trying to socially eradicate human qualities like compassion, altruism, pity and empathy. Oh… and love.
Comment by Joy — April 21, 2008 @ 11:37 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:39 am
Religion or politics or philosophies like humanism can all both justify and lead some to call for action. Why? Because they are all wedded to value systems which all humans have. There are no moral vacuums. The best we can do is ensure that our moral values are solid.
The point about Einstein is correct however you are glossing over a phenomenon alluded to by Salvador namely, the persistence of genetics based diseases which confer no selective value. An increasing genetic load can occur naturally or be abetted through modern medicine.
Glad you included some facts, related to historical occurences, mentioned without explanatory details. The new eugenics may indeed succeed. More follows.
Yes and therein lies the rub. In a politicized world of competing value systems the value system in vogue, within any particular society, will determine which of many possible policies holds sway. That's a problem for eugenics in particular and social engineering in general. Who gets to determine what is good and socially desireable? The answer of course is the people in charge at any particular moment. What assurance do we have that those individuals will behave in a manner that is morally acceptable? None. That leads this writer to conclude that the less power made available to those who govern the better off we are. That and a systems of checks and balances were mechanisms deemed essential by America's founding fathers. They had a great deal of wisdom in this respect.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2008 @ 11:39 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:40 am
fifthmonarcyman asks:
And here's a related question; given that there is not much difference between the outcome of directed versus undirected evolution, does anyone here think that ID necessarily could not be perverted into the same kinds of sociopolitical abuses into which evolutionary biology was perverted by the eugenicists and/or the Nazi's? And please refrain from making religious arguments, since we are talking about the sciences of evolutionary biology and ID, right?
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 21, 2008 @ 11:40 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:45 am
Allen MacNeill,
Singer justifies a lot of his philosophy with reference to evolutionary biology and natural history - he's relied on it to add support to his views on everything from the value of human life to whether or not given particular acts (political, sexual, and otherwise) are acceptable. He's received praise for his philosophical developments from a lot of sources, including some biologists. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but are you saying that because Singer is a philosopher, not an evolutionary biologist, he (and the people who praise him) 'don't count' as an example of warping science to serve philosophy a la eugenics?
Comment by nullasalus — April 21, 2008 @ 11:45 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am
But it may not even be the long run.
Oxford geneticist Bryan Sykes says 100,000 years based on empirically measured mutation rates. He, like McFadden have raised the alarm, and unfortunately, I think the numbers are on their side. That's the irony, even the one-time-Darwinist-turned-Creationist Sanford agrees with them in general. No one knows the exact figure, but the time is short. The alternatives:
1. Vigorous Eugenics
2. Re-Engineering (McFadden)
3. Hope for a miracle
I'll probably be dead before I see how humanity deals with the problem.
God called for genocide in the Old Testament. Thus, I don't exactly encourage Christians to be arguing the Darwin/Genocide link lest they have the Old-Testament/Genocide link thrown right back at them….
I do think there is some link between the Nazis and Darwin even though Heinrich Himmler himself thought it odious that humans might be descended from apes. I could not blame Darwin for the actions of the Nazis. I could argue that Nazis were Darwinists in the selectionist sense, even though some thought man was not descended from apes.
For myself, some of this is a moot point in relation to the fundamental question of the truthfulness of Darwin's theory.
Berlinski argued the Darwin/Hitler link in the movie. He articulates the general view of many ID proponents. See: Connecting Hitler and Darwin.
Berlinski himself is a Jew by birth and considers himself an agnostic and son of englightenment values. I feel he gave a balanced treatment of the subject. He echoes my personal sentiments on this historical question.
Uta George, the director of the Hadamar Memorial — the one time extermination center for the "biologically unfit" — said that the Nazis drew their inspiration from Darwin, not Malthus. It might be worth investigating why George would say that. She seemed like she was not an ID crusader in any sense….just giving her view of history.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 21, 2008 @ 11:47 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:49 am
I don't. Christian blood is being spilt in large numbers in countries where creationism is espoused (like Somalia). Formally speaking, not all creationists are Christians.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — April 21, 2008 @ 11:49 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am
If a trait is no longer a significant disability due to medical advances, then it may no longer be a significant evolutionary factor. If an otherwise deleterious trait is curable, then it no longer matters. Meanwhile, sexual selection continues to help maintain an overall healthy population.
Comment by Zachriel — April 21, 2008 @ 11:55 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:56 am
nullasalus asked:
No, I'm saying precisely that: since Singer is using scientific concepts to support an ethical position, he is indeed "warping science to serve philosophy a la eugenics?"
BTW, the connections between evolutionary biology and ethics will be the focus of my summer seminar in evolution at Cornell. For more information, see:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 21, 2008 @ 11:56 am
April 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am
Allen_MacNeill:
Good question Allen. I'll venture an answer. Free with respect to biochemical reactions constantly occurring within our brains and nervous systems. It would not and could not mean independence from them in the sense of being free of influence and feedback. However, a mind's capacity to choose between options would have to be free of a deterministic outcome resulting from underlying biochemistry. A test (inherently difficult) would entail sequencing an order of events that included thought and reactions. If free will exists there must be occasions when thought preceeds associated biochemical events.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2008 @ 11:58 am
April 21st, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Bradford wrote:
Amen, brother "“ ubi libertas, ibi patria!
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 21, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Zachriel:
I'm all for that, but do you think it still has a significant effect in modern humans? (It certainly did: >50% of all selection in past humans; Wade & Shuster 2004).
Comment by Raevmo — April 21, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Hi Nullasalus,
You wrote…
The actions of the Spartans in 500 BC were clearly disconnected from Darwinism. The Nazis opposed Darwinism to the point of banning and/or burning Darwin's writings. I will get into how Hilter and Nazism were disconnected (in opposition to) Darwinism in my response to angryoldfatman.
You also wrote…
I tend to be uncomfortable using Wikipedia as an authoritative source, but since you brought it up…
"Social Darwinism is a hypothesis that competition among all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. The term is an extension of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, where competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through the survival of the fittest.
The term was popularized in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter, and has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to represent." link
The original scientific hypothesis of "Social Darwinism" was simply an extension of Darwin's theories. The term has been subsequently used and abused by both proponents and critics.
Darwin's theories were about understanding NATURAL processes using scientific methodologies. Your only connection is that some people, including some of Darwin's relatives, used the term for something totally unrelated to a scientific theory about natural processes.
Shall we discuss the use and abuse of Christianity by the KKK and skinheads?
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 21, 2008 @ 12:13 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Allen MacNeill wrote:
Aren't all of the options in this case "negative eugenics"
Comment by chunkdz — April 21, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Bradford:
If I might be so bold to make a suggestion. Let's make an exact copy, atom by atom, of Joy (unbeknownst to her), and let both Joys independently write posts on this blog (under different names). I predict the resulting rants will be nearly indistinguishable in style and content.
Comment by Raevmo — April 21, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Raevmo:
We can get something close to genetic equivalance in identical twins. Twins have different personalities. BTW, I think many of Joy's eugenics comments are spot on.
Comment by Bradford — April 21, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Bradford:
I know, but I'm not just talking about genetic identity, I'm talking about phenotypic identity, all the way down to the atomic level. They would have identical personalities then, don't you think?
Comment by Raevmo — April 21, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:31 pm
"Genetic Entropy" is refuted by the plain evidence of historical evolution. Species come and go, but often leave descendents. As to Sykes, he has somewhat modified his original view of the y-chromosome. Maleness will continue to exist as long as it is an evolutionary benefit.
Absolutely. Social skills (including the respect of one's peers), ability to provide, physical grace and beauty, sexual appetite, perceived commitment, are all important in mating.
Comment by Zachriel — April 21, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I think it has already been observed, and correctly, and maybe bears repeating, but eugenics is pre-Darwinian.
And it also bears repeating that Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory of eugenics.
However, eugenicists since Darwin may have been rather selective in their reading of Darwin:
Darwin repeatedly reflects upon our ignorance of the laws of variation.
He observes generally that stock bred by humans benefit only indirectly and only under artificial (humanly controlled) conditions and are less fit under natural conditions.
He observes distinct limitations to the power of selection, natural and artificial.
And he repeatedly observes how inferior are the products of man's ingenuity compared to the works of nature.
Darwin's corpse has been drug around since before it was even cold by every pseudo-scientific crackpot and madman. He's been made the spokesmodel for every failed experiment in social engineering, and every crime against humanity.
I can hardly bring myself to blame Darwin.
Maybe more science less mudslinging? The issues involved are too important for the usual shit-fest.
Comment by Rock — April 21, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Yes, you are right. Religion, politics and philosophies can both justify an action and lead to a call for action. However, science and scientific theories can and do not. That was my point. And I'm glad that you agree.
I just wonder why so many other people get confused on this point. For example see Sal's ridiculous comment:
Darwin being correct in his theories about the origin of species has no bearing whatsoever on whether eugenics is 'right' or 'wrong'. Sal apparently thinks that the scientific theory somehow has a bearing on the moral value (right or wrong) of a specific action (eugenics). Go figure.
Comment by hrun — April 21, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Bradford,
But even the underlying biochemistry may or may not be purely deterministic. And subjective thought always precedes some activity in the brain. Even in the experiments typically rallied to argue against as much.
Allen,
Just making sure, I wasn't clear on that before. Though Singer tends to get a fair amount of praise from a number of scientists (among others).
TP,
And even if you, against all the evidence, managed to establish such - you'd have to contend with eugenics as a whole (as Joy and others have repeatedly and properly pointed out, eugenics took root in America and elsewhere). Do as you will, TP, but it's not going to get you anywhere - darwinism was a concept widely abused in the service of philosophical and political goals as seen with eugenics. And with atheism, in my opinion.
TP, have you read a single word I've written on this subject - and I mean honestly read and comprehended? I've said outright that darwinism was abused in the service of eugenics. Not that 'it naturally leads to eugenics' (I personally do not believe that), not that Darwin himself advocated eugenics (I do not believe that, and it's besides the point). In other words, the fact that eugenics and social darwinism grew out of a manipulation of, an abuse of, science - is my entire argument. That scientists and politicians arguing that eugenics was a route science demanded of us, and the viewing of certain people as inferior was the stuff of scientific truth, was an abuse.
Why bother? Judging by the phantom arguments you tend to have with me, you'd argue against an illusion you've created to support your worldview.
Honestly, TP, do you think I - anyone in this thread - don't believe religion in general, and Christianity in particular, has been abused to support horrible things? The difference is that when someone tells me 'The KKK leaned on Christianity to support their ideas', my response is "they absolutely did, and it's important to understand where they went wrong, and combat it". Meanwhile, the mere suggestion that darwinism was abused to support horrible things means you have to throw up a wall of defense, deny everything, obscure the issue - anything to minimize what you (wrongly) perceive as damage to your political hopes.
Comment by nullasalus — April 21, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Combine the two: Darwin's theory of evolution is a theory of the study of the hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
Rock, which version of 'On the Origin of Species' did you read?
Comment by hrun — April 21, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Zachriel:
Agreed, but there's also lots of assortative mating ("op elk potje past een deksel" we say over here. Roughly: "every jar has a fitting lid"). Do we have any current estimates on relative variance in reproductive success in modern human societies?
Comment by Raevmo — April 21, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
April 21st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Hi Angryoldfatman,
You wrote…
And in response to me saying "The Spartans practiced human eugenics long ago", you responded with…
You also went on to claim the practice of artificially trying to create/maintain racial purity disappeared for the intervening 1500 years. That just flies in the face of a historical prevalence of ethnic cleansings and royal blood lines.
Sorry, but the pogram that occured under Hitler wasn't fundamentally new, any more than fighting a war was new. Both were just modernized versions of something that happened many, many, many times before.
You asked me to read the link you provided. I read it. I am curious if you did. There is no mention of "Darwin", "eugenics" or even "genetics". Here is what it did contain