Holding their feet to the fire ...

[Cerebrum123]

OTOH, the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, probably the most outspoken atheist in the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century, is an evangelistic minister. Are you going to say this is what his mother taught him to be?

This quip doesn't work when we have this.

Source: Thought Criminal Blog

Leonard Darwin had been talking about his father's eugenics beliefs for far longer than that. Last year I mentioned the dedication to his father of his book, The Need for Eugenic Reform, in 1926. In his dedication he does what no one is more qualified to have done, attribute his eugenics beliefs to Charles Darwin. "For if I had not believed that he would have wished me to give such help as I could toward making his life's work of service to mankind, I should never have been led to write this book.” He was 76 the year he wrote that. In that he directly states that eugenics was the practical application of Charles Darwin's "life's work" and that he fully believed his own father would have seen his eugenics activism as making Charles Darwin's work "of service to mankind".

© Copyright Original Source

Source.

Do you have Madalyn's son saying similar as an atheist? Never mind, rhetorical question. I need to stop reading these threads anyway. The ignorance passing itself off as education is too sickening.

[Jorge]

Are you wanting rogue06 to offer the kind of rant that you do Jorge?

"rant"?

I'll have to find a better hiding place for the keys to the vodka cabinet.

Jorge

[rwatts]

I admit remaining astonished at the level of faithfulness and effort that you practice defending and promoting your Sacred Cow - Evolution.

Are you wanting rogue06 to offer the kind of rant that you do Jorge?

[Jorge]

Just because his son Leonard supported eugenics does not mean that either Charles Darwin or the ToE advocated eugenics. As I already made abundantly clear (and reposted in this thread here) Charles Darwin was adamantly opposed to eugenical thinking and concepts so Leonard would have had to go against his father's beliefs in this matter

A child going against his parent's teachings is not exactly unheard of. Parents often have children that do things that they don't approve of and oppose.

The son of Michael Behe, a leading figure in the Intelligent Design movement, has announced that he is an "outspoken atheist" (Leo's own term). Are you going to claim this is what his father taught him to be?

The daughter of Matthew J. Slick, the president of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), has recently announced that she is an atheist. Are you seriously going to claim this is what her father taught her to be?

OTOH, the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, probably the most outspoken atheist in the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century, is an evangelistic minister. Are you going to say this is what his mother taught him to be?

History is full of such examples where the children didn't follow in their parent's footsteps. American Revolutionary leader Benjamin Franklin had a son who was a staunch Tory. Joseph Patrick "Joe" Kennedy was pretty conservative but his sons were pretty liberal. Ernest Hemingway and his non-hunting, teatotalling sons

George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush were very active in the leadership of the eugenics societies (the latter IIRC was the director of a group in Connecticut) doesn't automatically mean that either George Herbert Walker Bush or George Walker Bush (or any other living member of the Bush family) support eugenics.



As I've already pointed out Laughlin was influenced not by Darwin or evolution but by Mendelian genetics

So much for the attempt to link evolution to the abominations of the Nazis. The Nazis were indeed heavily influenced by American eugenicists but these guys like Laughlin and Charles Benedict Davenport were guided by Mendel and genetics -- not by Darwin and evolution.


Agreed, and that is what I said earlier in this post. But the part you ignore is that the folks who influenced the Nazi's eugenics program weren't influenced by Darwin and evolution but by Mendel and genetics.


It sounds just like the practices put in place by ancient Sparta -- who Hitler and other Nazi's cited as their role models.
Sheesh. If you had actually read any of my posts you would know that I've covered most of this.


While I'm certainly no fan of either Sanger or Planned Parenthood for that matter, her words are commonly ripped out of context and even some of the things her critics have claimed that she meant have been falsely attributed to her as things she actually said.

As for Popenoe, he was in thick with both Laughlin and Davenport as well as Madison Grant (who I also already discussed in contrast to avid supporter of Darwin and evolution, Franz Boas) who spoke of "inherited defect[s] due to a single Mendelian factor." And in his "Applied Eugenics" kept referencing the "laws of heredity." IOW, Popenoe, like his buddies, his eugenical ideas were primarily influenced by Mendel and genetics rather than Darwin and evolution.


Yeah, Popenoe was such a "fervent Dawinist" [sic] that in the portion of his aforementioned "Applied Eugenics" that covered natural selection, Popenoe left it to someone else, Roswell H. Johnson, to write about it because genetics was the former's area of expertise and he didn't know much about the subject (which kind of clinches it that evolutionary theory wasn't a big influence on Popenoe's thinking).


This connection is again exposed as being incredibly weak when compared to the influence that Gregor Mendel and genetics played. Yet you never hear of YECs foaming at the mouth and attacking them like they do Darwin and evolution. This is because that doesn't fit in with their agenda. So hypocrites that they are they conveniently ignore it.

I admit remaining astonished at the level of faithfulness and effort that you practice defending and promoting your Sacred Cow - Evolution. I only wish that all Biblical Creationists exhibited the same level of fervent dedication promoting God's biblical account as you exhibit promoting the Evolutionary account. If that were to happen, we'd regain control of this 'war' in a heartbeat. BTW, maybe you should consider finding full-time, gainful employment, R06 'coz clearly you have waaaayyy too much free time on your hands. Then again, maybe this IS your full-time job (?) -- getting paid by the Evo-Club of America.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Then why are you posting this garbage in the Natural Science forum instead of some fundamentalist theological forum where you'll get no one to call you on your obvious category error and is/ought fallacy??!!

The science of evolution is the science of evolution. If you want to attack its science, go right ahead and good luck with that, but this deceitful tack does not support Biblical "scientific" Creationism in any way, shape, or form.

Enjoy blowing noisemakers at your little party.

K54

By now you surely know that you've been BOOTED off this thread, Santa 'Duffus' Klaus.
So get going ... boot - boot - boot !!!

For others: what Santa 'Bozo' Klaus writes above neglects to mention (no surprise there) what I have posted here time and time and time again. Evolution is not presented as ideology or philosophy or theology - Evolution is presented as pure science. That's why it's in this forum, Santa Klaus.

My aim is to put a spotlight on this issue so as to hopefully make some of you here aware and alert to the deceptions taking place under the guise of "science". I say "some of you here" because I do not kid myself - I know full well that many people are beyond help, either because they have closed their minds tighter than a sealed drum or because they know what the score is but they have willingly chosen to believe the lie rather than the truth. Why? I believe that the primary reason (there are many reasons) is because this allows them to live as they wish rather than as they should (submitting to the truth).

Have a good time at the fishing hole, Santa Klaus!

Jorge

[rogue06]

As a total aside, one of the reasons that eugenics lost favor in the U.S. was the Great Depression. Eugenicists attributed economic conditions to biological deterioration -- they believed poverty was a characteristic of genetic inferiority. When the Great Depression struck eugenicists insisted that those who were poor and unemployed were so because of a biological destiny that made them incompetent, irresponsible and thriftless. But too many folks from "good families" who were thought to be from sound biological stock were ruined and faced with poverty during this period. This caused many people to open their eyes to the unscientific nature of eugenics and how it had been designed to reinforces prejudices.

[rogue06]

The First International Eugenics Conference took place in London in 1912. It was organized by the British Eugenics Education Society and dedicated to Francis Galton who had died a year earlier. Major Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin, was presiding. In the final address, Major Darwin extolled eugenics as the practical application of the principle of evolution (Bruinius, Harry. Better For All the World. The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America's Quest for Racial Purity. A. A. Knopf, New York, 2006. ISBN 0-375-41371-5).

You think, just maybe, that Major Darwin was thoroughly familiar with Evolution?
And that underlined part ... sure does sound a lot like Jorge's thesis in this thread.

The Second International Eugenics Conference was held in New York in 1921, Alexander Graham Bell was the honorary president. The principal guest speaker, Major Leonard Darwin, advocated eugenic measures that needed to be taken, namely the "elimination of the unfit", the discouragement of large families in the "ill-endowed", and the encouragement of large families in the "well-endowed". (reference: New York Times, September 25, 1921).

Huh - "elimination of the unfit" once again by Major Darwin. Sure does sound a lot like what Jorge has been saying here, namely, the direct, logical application of a fundamental Darwinian Principle.

The Third International Eugenics Conference was also held in New York in 1932. Major Darwin, then 88 years old, was unable to attend. He sent a report that was read by Sir Ronald Fisher. On August 23, 1932, The New York Times reported, “‘Eugenic reforms must be adopted within the next hundred years if civilization is to go on’, was the message of Major Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin, founder of the modern theory of evolution, read last night at the Third International Congress of Eugenics, which opened yesterday at the American Museum of Natural History.”

Just because his son Leonard supported eugenics does not mean that either Charles Darwin or the ToE advocated eugenics. As I already made abundantly clear (and reposted in this thread here) Charles Darwin was adamantly opposed to eugenical thinking and concepts so Leonard would have had to go against his father's beliefs in this matter

A child going against his parent's teachings is not exactly unheard of. Parents often have children that do things that they don't approve of and oppose.

The son of Michael Behe, a leading figure in the Intelligent Design movement, has announced that he is an "outspoken atheist" (Leo's own term). Are you going to claim this is what his father taught him to be?

The daughter of Matthew J. Slick, the president of Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), has recently announced that she is an atheist. Are you seriously going to claim this is what her father taught her to be?

OTOH, the son of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, probably the most outspoken atheist in the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century, is an evangelistic minister. Are you going to say this is what his mother taught him to be?

History is full of such examples where the children didn't follow in their parent's footsteps. American Revolutionary leader Benjamin Franklin had a son who was a staunch Tory. Joseph Patrick "Joe" Kennedy was pretty conservative but his sons were pretty liberal. Ernest Hemingway and his non-hunting, teatotalling sons

George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush were very active in the leadership of the eugenics societies (the latter IIRC was the director of a group in Connecticut) doesn't automatically mean that either George Herbert Walker Bush or George Walker Bush (or any other living member of the Bush family) support eugenics.


As I've already pointed out Laughlin was influenced not by Darwin or evolution but by Mendelian genetics

For instance Harry Hamilton Laughlin, who was among the most active individuals in influencing American eugenics policy in the first half of the 20th century (especially in forced sterilization policies and described as "among the most racist and anti-Semitic of early twentieth-century eugenicists"), became interested in eugenics through breeding experiments and the works of Gregor Johann Mendel^[1] -- specifically what is called Mendelian inheritance.

Laughlin was superintendent in charge of the Eugenics Record Office (ERO) from its origin in 1910 until 1921 and director from 1921 until either 1939 or 1940 as well as president of the American Eugenics Society 1927-28, and associate editor of the Eugenical News from 1916 to 1939. He was also awarded an honorary medical degree by the Nazi-controlled University of Heidelberg in 1936 for his work behalf of the “science of racial cleansing.”

So much for the attempt to link evolution to the abominations of the Nazis. The Nazis were indeed heavily influenced by American eugenicists but these guys like Laughlin and Charles Benedict Davenport were guided by Mendel and genetics -- not by Darwin and evolution.

Laughlin was friends with Charles Benedict Davenport, who founded the ERO and an early American researcher into Mendelian inheritance. Initially skeptical of the validity of Mendelian genetics he became convinced through his own research involving animal breeding experiments.

Davenport became one of the most prominent figures of the American eugenics movement (sometimes referred to its standard bearer) and was directly involved in the sterilization of approximately 60,000 "unfit" Americans.

His works strongly influenced Nazi racial supremacists and while he didn't approve of how they governed, Davenport kept up connections with various Nazi institutions and publications, both before and during World War II.

So two of America's most notorious eugenicists, aside from their Nazi connections, were influenced not by Darwin and the ToE but by the genetic research of Gregor Mendel.

The Nazis pointed to eugenics practices in other European countries and the leadership that had been provided by the United States. Thus was initiated the process to rid “the unfit” from German society – the Holocaust was born. [Laughlin was the Director of the Eugenics Record Office in New York from its inception in 1910 to its closing in 1939 and was among the most active individuals influencing American eugenics policy including compulsory sterilization legislation.]

Agreed, and that is what I said earlier in this post. But the part you ignore is that the folks who influenced the Nazi's eugenics program weren't influenced by Darwin and evolution but by Mendel and genetics.

Once again we see "the unfit". If that doesn't sound like an application of "survival of the fittest" by doing away with "the unfit" - a fundamental Darwinian Principle - then I guess nothing does.

It sounds just like the practices put in place by ancient Sparta -- who Hitler and other Nazi's cited as their role models.

The actual constitution of Sparta included eugenic measures where by law every new-born child was brought to the Council Hall and examined. Any deemed unfit and useless by the city elders were taken to a chasm on the slopes of Mount Taygetus a few miles outside the center of Sparta known as the Apothetae -- the “Deposits” -- and cast into it.

According to Allen G. Roper’s essay "Ancient Eugenics," the ancient Spartans believed that "it was better for the child and the city that one not born from the beginning to comeliness and strength should not live." This is precisely what Plutarch recorded about them in his "Lives”:

Source: Lives: Lycurgus, the Father of the Spartans

"Whenever a child was born, it was taken to a council of elders for examination. If the baby was in any way defective, the elders dropped it into a chasm. Such a child, in the opinion of the Spartans, should not be permitted to live."


Source

© Copyright Original Source

Even Conservapedia recognizes that "The Spartans in ancient Greece practiced a primitive form of eugenics, wherein babies which were judged to be too 'weak' or 'sickly' would be left to die," although throwing them into a chasm wasn't exactly just leaving them to die.

...

Returning to Sparta and eugenics, they, and not Darwin or evolutionary theory, were the inspiration for the Nazis who took eugenical practices to the extreme turning it into outright genocide.

In his "Zweites Buch" ("Second Book"), an unedited transcript of Hitler's thoughts on foreign policy written in 1928 after "Mein Kampf

Hitler explicitly recommended that Germany should imitate the Spartans by limiting "the number allowed to live". He added that "The Spartans were once capable of such a wise measure... The subjugation of 350,000 Helots by 6,000 Spartans was only possible because of the racial superiority of the Spartans."

Hitler praised the Spartans saying that they had created "the first racialist state." During the invasion of the U.S.S.R. he saw that country's citizens as Helots to his Spartans: "They came as conquerors, and they took everything."

This thought is echoed in "Der Generalplan Ost

Sheesh. If you had actually read any of my posts you would know that I've covered most of this.

In April of 1932 Margaret Sanger advocated an option "to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [i.e., concentration camps] or sterilization." (from ‘A Plan For Peace’, Birth Control Review, 1932).

Dr. Paul Popenoe was a researcher, a leader in the U.S. eugenics movement, author of the most widely used American eugenics text and editor of the Journal of Heredity. Margaret Sanger enthusiastically supported his ideas and practices. In the April 1933 Birth Control Review [edited my Margaret Sanger from 1917 through 1938) Popenoe wrote, “Eugenic sterilization is one of the many indispensable measures in any modern program of social welfare … Eugenic sterilization represents one such step that is practicable, humanitarian, and certain in its results.”

While I'm certainly no fan of either Sanger or Planned Parenthood for that matter, her words are commonly ripped out of context and even some of the things her critics have claimed that she meant have been falsely attributed to her as things she actually said.

As for Popenoe, he was in thick with both Laughlin and Davenport as well as Madison Grant (who I also already discussed in contrast to avid supporter of Darwin and evolution, Franz Boas) who spoke of "inherited defect[s] due to a single Mendelian factor." And in his "Applied Eugenics" kept referencing the "laws of heredity." IOW, Popenoe, like his buddies, his eugenical ideas were primarily influenced by Mendel and genetics rather than Darwin and evolution.

As if it needed saying, both Sanger and Popenoe were fervent Dawinists upholding the foundational Darwinian Principle of "survival of the fittest" by, among other things, limiting/eliminating the "inferior" of the species.

Yeah, Popenoe was such a "fervent Dawinist" [sic] that in the portion of his aforementioned "Applied Eugenics" that covered natural selection, Popenoe left it to someone else, Roswell H. Johnson, to write about it because genetics was the former's area of expertise and he didn't know much about the subject (which kind of clinches it that evolutionary theory wasn't a big influence on Popenoe's thinking).

Again, the connection between Darwinism and eugenics is utterly undeniable, except to a "special" few.

See, Rogue06 - I too can "Hurl Elephants" and my elephants are much bigger than yours.

Jorge

This connection is again exposed as being incredibly weak when compared to the influence that Gregor Mendel and genetics played. Yet you never hear of YECs foaming at the mouth and attacking them like they do Darwin and evolution. This is because that doesn't fit in with their agenda. So hypocrites that they are they conveniently ignore it.

[rwatts]

ha ha, you got me there

Well, to be fair, sometimes I did.

(I'm at the age where occasionally I even nod off at work. )

its science
But do you think Newton's conclusions set in stone forever.

Do you think Darwin's conclusion, based on the work of science is set in stone forever, and there is no HGT, just Darwin's tree.

No.

None of those ideas are set in stone forever. Eienstein's ideas do better than Newton's ideas, but there are puzzles about Einstein's ideas. Darwin proposed a great mechanism but there are puzzles concerning his mechanism.

In the essay I'm currently writing and posting about denovo gene origin, HGT is one of the methods by which new genes arise. There are several others, but Darwin couldn't know about these.

His trees survive but HGT makes them a lot more messy, most particularly down towards the base of the trunk. There, life is bacterial and HGT happens an awful lot, as does vertical gene transfer.

[jordanriver]

Are you sure you didn't nod off during the class JR?

.

ha ha, you got me there

If science is just data collection and hypothesis formulation, then Newton's theory of gravity is not science. It's just a theory, another interpretation of the data

its science
But do you think Newton's conclusions set in stone forever.

Do you think Darwin's conclusion, based on the work of science is set in stone forever, and there is no HGT, just Darwin's tree.

[HMS_Beagle]

Ya noticed how I don't even waste my time with you any more, Beagle Boy?
If you hadn't noticed then allow me to draw your attention to it.

Doesn't make the constant running away you do any less cowardly.

[rwatts]

maybe its my public education.

my science teacher in his monotone elocution, said (he sounded like Ben Stein) "Science .......is work"

.... "science is work, gathering recording data .....and if you do the work .........gather adequate data, then you can formulate a hypothesis, .....

Are you sure you didn't nod off during the class JR?

If science is just data collection and hypothesis formulation, then Newton's theory of gravity is not science. It's just a theory, another interpretation of the data.

[klaus54]

Stupid nonsense - Santa Klaus' specialization.




The one where you get to believe in whatever you choose and when God's Word appears to stand in your way you simply change the interpretation and/or toss out the Words altogether so that you may preside over your own life without God's interference - THAT lifestyle - the one practiced by all Atheists/Humanists and most Theistic Evolutionists.

Jorge

Quick question.

I'm thinking of converting. Does your side have cookies?

Thanks in advance for your response!

K54

[rwatts]

Last but not least, do not forget that there are TWO 'evolutions'. This leads to something that may appear to contradict what I've just said - it doesn't. Here's it is: it is indeed a PROVEN fact (observations and repeatable experiments will confirm this time and again) that evolution occurs -- allele frequencies in populations do change over time and these changes are manifested in the phenotypes of individuals in the population. Again, this is indeed a PROVEN fact.

Ahhh ... but then there's Evolution.

There's more but I've had enough.

Jorge

I guess this is just like there's meteorology which is based on observation and proven fact, and there's Meteorology which contradicts the literal word of the Bible. Big "M" Meteorology would deal with the origin of rain, drought, clouds, frost, wind etc.

Since you understand all these things Jorge, you absence from my essays on Evolution is very noticeable.

[Jorge]

Wow, thanks for the masterful job of projection, but I've already seen the movie.

Stupid nonsense - Santa Klaus' specialization.

I am curious as to what lifestyle you refer?

K54

The one where you get to believe in whatever you choose and when God's Word appears to stand in your way you simply change the interpretation and/or toss out the Words altogether so that you may preside over your own life without God's interference - THAT lifestyle - the one practiced by all Atheists/Humanists and most Theistic Evolutionists.

Jorge

[Jorge]

There's certainly no way when the one making the claim is too cowardly to even try.

Ya noticed how I don't even waste my time with you any more, Beagle Boy?
If you hadn't noticed then allow me to draw your attention to it.

Jorge