# Shouldn't we reject genetics?



## SRoper (Apr 22, 2008)

I'm having difficulty understanding the argument that one reason we should reject Darwinism is because it leads to eugenics. It seems that all one needs to justify eugenics is the idea that traits are inheritable. Once you have that, you have the mechanism by which you can improve a species by only allowing those with desireable traits to reproduce. So if we should reject Darwin because his theory justifies eugenics, shouldn't we be consistent and reject Mendel as well? If we aren't willing to do this, shouldn't we just drop the eugenics argument altogether?


----------



## ericfromcowtown (Apr 22, 2008)

I think that the potential for eugenics is a poor argument against Darwinism. That's like saying "we won't believe Darwin because the consequences are unethical." It's either true or it isn't, regardless of the consequences. I think that a better argument against Darwin is that his theory is at best seriously flawed (cambrian explosion and punctuated equilibrium) and at "worst" just fallen man's attempt to justify away God.


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 22, 2008)

I don't see any reason that genetics need be dropped, considering it "works". You might as I do quibble with the discussion of origins in genetics - but simply because scientific evidence and understanding is misused does not in and of itself rule out the validity of the findings, nor should it cause us to reject what is clearly factual.


----------



## Heldveld (Apr 22, 2008)

I've never heard that argument myself. I think that most creationists believe in eugenics, that species can improve or change over time (i.e. dog breeds), but only reject that species evolve into other species.

It seems a poor argument in that first eugenics does not require Darwinism and secondly as mentioned in the other reply propositions should be accepted on if they are true or not, not on there consequences.


----------



## Ravens (Apr 22, 2008)

Scott,

Quick response as I'm going out the door in a minute: When I first read your post I had a good five minutes wrestling with it and trying to distinguish the differences between Darwin, Mendel, how Christians treat both, and eugenics.

Here's my take: Mendel simply observed "what is", the basics of genetic theory, etc. Had Darwin simply observed his finches and argued that species can adapt to their environment, then yes, I would view him as similar to Mendel. I think the difference is that Darwin seemed to argue backwards from that and present an entire picture of life and worldview that saw all of life as the survival of the fittest, and natural selection as the mechanism thereof. Granted, maybe I am wrong about him, as I have only read this from secondary sources over my life. But it does seem as if Darwin instituted the notion that life had constantly been a struggle, and that unfit and less-adapted lifeforms were naturally destined to destruction and being left behind, whereas the higher could continue.

So, perhaps that specific aspect is why they make the case between eugenics and Darwinism, not due to the bare science that we can cultivate good genetic traits, but rather to the larger implications and assumptions of Darwin's views whereby natural selection and " Nature " actually becomes the _rationale and justification_ for eradicating the life that is unworthy of life. After all, they were just acting out Nature's will.

One could retain the facts of Mendel and some of Darwin's okay observations and place them in the Christian context of the fall, warped genetic codes, etc., while still wholly affirming the value of each individual due to their creation in the image of God, the inherent right to reproduce, and the goal of the "Higher Life" and "Higher Nature" to actually tend for and nurture the weak, rather than wipe them out.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 22, 2008)

SRoper said:


> I'm having difficulty understanding the argument that one reason we should reject Darwinism is because it leads to eugenics. It seems that all one needs to justify eugenics is the idea that traits are inheritable. Once you have that, you have the mechanism by which you can improve a species by only allowing those with desireable traits to reproduce. So if we should reject Darwin because his theory justifies eugenics, shouldn't we be consistent and reject Mendel as well? If we aren't willing to do this, shouldn't we just drop the eugenics argument altogether?



Should we do away with medicine too? Or surgery? The problem with the eugenics movement is not the manipulation of genes but their motivation and ethical reasons in doing so. Our genetic studies, as with all science, must be governed by the law of God. If they are trying to kill humans with it, or in the process of studying it, then yes we must condemn them for attacking the image of God and murdering human beings. But if studying ways to replace faulty genes with better ones will help improve our fight against disease and preserve life, then I don't see how it's wrong. It's a matter of how we use our knowledge and tools,the "ought" behind the "is." We discovered these amazing things in genes, now how would God have us use that knowledge?


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 22, 2008)

SRoper said:


> I'm having difficulty understanding the argument that one reason we should reject Darwinism is because it leads to eugenics. It seems that all one needs to justify eugenics is the idea that traits are inheritable. Once you have that, you have the mechanism by which you can improve a species by only allowing those with desirable traits to reproduce. So if we should reject Darwin because his theory justifies eugenics, shouldn't we be consistent and reject Mendel as well? If we aren't willing to do this, shouldn't we just drop the eugenics argument altogether?



The big thing about Mendel was that he didn't do anything vastly different than what people non-systematically knew before. People always knew that various traits were passed on from parent to child. However there was not a systematic understanding of it. Mendel added that and really changed an art to a science. Also Mendel really does not allow one to write an evolutionary blank check that Darwin tried to write. For example, there are limits to the amount of milk that a cow can produce, regardless of your breeding tactics.

According to the movie: Expelled, the problem with Darwinism is the reduction of humans and human nature to ones genes. This really reduces the intrinsic worth of a person. That added with a Malthusian view of scarcity and you have an almost obligation to eliminate the lesser beings. Why should the higher beings suffer because they are wasting resources on the lower beings?

CT


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 22, 2008)

Malthusian. Now there's a word I haven't read in a while, but most appropriate to this discussion. 

I don't know that I've ever heard that a reason for rejecting Darwinism is that it _leads_ to eugenics. Only that the practice of eugenics in humans was a logical extension of the godless, ammoral paradigm that Darwinism requires. The fallacy lies in that those who most vehemently support Darwinism generally reject human eugenics just as vehemently, regardless of the logical incoherence of their position.


----------



## Hippo (Apr 22, 2008)

37 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. 38 He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, 39 the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted. 40 And Jacob separated the lambs and set the faces of the flocks toward the striped and all the black in the flock of Laban. He put his own droves apart and did not put them with Laban's flock. 41 Whenever the stronger of the flock were breeding, Jacob would lay the sticks in the troughs before the eyes of the flock, that they might breed among the sticks, 42 but for the feebler of the flock he would not lay them there. So the feebler would be Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's. 43 Thus the man increased greatly and had large flocks, female servants and male servants, and camels and donkeys. 
Gen 30:37-43 (ESV)

Is this genetics?


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 22, 2008)

> Is this genetics?


It used to be called husbandry.


----------



## SRoper (Apr 22, 2008)

Just to clarify, I'm not seriously saying we should reject genetics. I was just trying to figure out what's behind the Darwinism leads to eugenics argument.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 23, 2008)

SRoper said:


> Just to clarify, I'm not seriously saying we should reject genetics. I was just trying to figure out what's behind the Darwinism leads to eugenics argument.



Survival of the "fittest."


----------



## SRoper (Apr 23, 2008)

OK, but survival of the fittest isn't really a controversial claim of Darwinism. I mean it's practically tautological. What is controversial about Darwinism is the idea that change plus natural selection explains speciation.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 23, 2008)

SRoper said:


> OK, but survival of the fittest isn't really a controversial claim of Darwinism. I mean it's practically tautological. What is controversial about Darwinism is the idea that change plus natural selection explains speciation.



But it is the underlying philosophy behind the eugenics movement in the past. Find the best and brightest in society, sterilize or exterminate the rest.


----------

