• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Eugenics supporters?

T'ai Chi said:
Are any of the Darwinists here pro-eugenics, like in the eugenics program ideas of the late 1800s - 1930s, and would still like to implement them today?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)
Click to expand...

Yes, yes. Another Creationist Claim: Evolution promotes eugenics.

Why don't you ask if there are any Creationists who are in favor of eugenics?

Wait. There are:

Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.
Source
Click to expand...

Now what, T'ai Chi?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Are any of the Darwinists here pro-eugenics, like in the eugenics program ideas of the late 1800s - 1930s, and would still like to implement them today?

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)
Click to expand...


Why in the world would a believer in natural selection be a proponent of forced or un-natural selection? If competition and fitness will select for traits that increase survival, there's no need to meddle. If evolution doesn't create a "better" species but just a different one, it doesn't even provide a template for eugenics.

All in all, a silly strawman to construct.
 
It depends on how you're defining "eugenics" really. What if we were able to get rid of some horrible genetic disease through gene therapy? Would that count as eugenics? Because I would totally be in support of that.
 
I really don't see what Eugenics per say has to do with either religious or evolutionist beliefs. Isn't it merely the improvement of the human race via genetics? Sure, it can be used by the unscrpulous and bigoted in an unethical way. But so can many other sciences. What it all boils down to is how it is applied and by whom.
 
Last edited:
YES!

And as a believer in the theory of gravity, I throw babies off of balconies.
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Are there any "Darwinists" here?
Click to expand...

Hey, don't complain... you can always immediately tell the people who are more interested in supporting creationist lies than dealing with reality in an honest way, by their use of the words "Darwinist" and "Darwinism".
 
Radrook said:
I really don't see what Eugenics per say has to do with either religious or evolutionist beliefs. Isn't it merely the improvement of the human race via genetics? Sure, it can be used by the unscrpulous and bigoted in an unethical way. But so can many other sciences. What it all boils down to is how it is applied and by whom.
Click to expand...

It's just one of the many evils that Evilution is supposed to have created.

Anything bad in modern society is blamed on Evilution. T'ai Chi is just following in the footstep of his fellow Creationists.
 
EGarrett said:
YES!

And as a believer in the theory of gravity, I throw babies off of balconies.
Click to expand...



Which simply means what I already said, that any belief can be taken to unethical extremes.
Right? The point is that it doesn't need to be. Take the embryonic stem cell issue for example. Bush opposed it, Reeves died without it ever being tried on him. Today they have found other ways to garner stem cells which doesn't involve human embryos. If the whole stem cell idea would have been rejected based on its perceived unethical requirements, then the present discovery would have been impossible. It's similar to outlawing all firearms simply because of their misuse potential. Agreed?
 
CFLarsen said:
It's just one of the many evils that Evilution is supposed to have created.

Anything bad in modern society is blamed on Evilution. T'ai Chi is just following in the footstep of his fellow Creationists.
Click to expand...

But that would have to assume thatprior to Darwin the Judeo-Islamic-Christians believed that mankind could not be improved. However, prior to Darwin the belief that mankind is a fallen, sinful, defective race needful of improvement was universally accepted and is still accepted and taught among those groups.

Now, if indeed improvement of the human race is an evil, then those claiming it as such would need to explain why it is an evil. Also, why it isn't an evil to find a cure for cancer which would also be an improvement. Or to produce children less likely to inherit gentic diseases is evil. Actually, to remain consistent, such a person would have to say that all improvement of the human race is evil regardless of the method involved. If not, then what is particularly evil in using genetics if the improvement is either equal to other methods or superior?

Either this or be inconsistent which is fallacious reasoning.

Now, as stated before, all technology and knowledge can be used unethically and the defining line between ethical and unethical can vary with each individual. But I am sure that those applying this technology are aware of just how far we can go without creating monsters in the name of improvement. If not, then that's where the danger really lies. It also lies in the acquisition of such technology by unscrupulous fanatics of the Hitlerian type.
But then again, all technological and scientific discoveries carry this double-edged nature and not just genetics.

Nuclear technology for example can be used to produce electricity or to burn people alive.

Ad infinitm.

I am not an atheist. But neither am I irrational against all science because of it. One does not inevitably follow the other.
 
Last edited:
I'm for post-birth abortion, does that count?

Oh, and

Soylent Green is people
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
But that would have to assume thatprior to Darwin the Judeo-Islamic-Christians believed that mankind could not be improved. However, prior to Darwin the belief that mankind is a fallen, sinful, defective race needful of improvement was universally accepted and is still accepted and taught among those groups.

Now, if indeed improvement of the human race is an evil, then those claiming it as such would need to explain why it is an evil. Also, why it isn't an evil to find a cure for cancer which would also be an improvement. Or to produce children less likely to inherit gentic diseases is evil. Actually, to remain consistent, such a person would have to say that all improvement of the human race is evil regardless of the method involved. If not, then what is particularly evil in using genetics if the improvement is either equal to other methods or superior?

Either this or be inconsistent which is fallacious reasoning.

Now, as stated before, all technology and knowledge can be used unethically and the defining line between ethical and unethical can vary with each individual. But I am sure that those applying this technology are aware of just how far we can go without creating monsters in the name of improvement. If not, then that's where the danger really lies. It also lies in the acquisition of such technology by unscrupulous fanatics of the Hitlerian type.
But then again, all technological and scientific discoveries carry this double-edged nature and not just genetics.

Nuclear technology for example can be used to produce electricity or to burn people alive.

Ad infinitm.

I am not an atheist. But neither am I irrational against all science because of it. One does not inevitably follow the other.
Click to expand...

Now you are applying logic to Creationist thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom