How Darwinistic are we...really?

[JBaldwin]

Society, after Darwin, was incontrovertibly about good breeding. That was the only true goal it had, or scientifically could have. Before Darwin, the view of historical development which fit best with Anglo/American tradition was a conception of individual rights independent of any theory of reciprocal obligations to the State; the duty of leaders was to Society, not to Government, a crucial distinction in perfect harmony with the teachings of Reformation Christianity, which extended to all believers a conception of individual duty, individual responsibility, and a free will right to decide for oneself beyond any claims of states. John Calvin proclaimed in his Institutes that through natural law, the judgment of conscience alone was able to distinguish between justice and injustice. It’s hard for secular minds to face, but the powerful freedoms of the West, unmatched by any other society at any other time, are rooted deeply in a religion so radical, so demanding it revolts the modern temper.

--John Taylor Gatto

I came across this quotation last week while reading Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education. I've been pondering ever since. Despite his obvious misunderstanding of free will, I believe he makes a solid argument.

What I've been asking myself is "In what ways is our society Darwinistic?" Truth be told, I can hardly find a part of today's American society that isn't darwinistic.

Take the TV programs Survivor, Project Runway, Dancing with the Stars, etc. All of which present in some form the survival of the fittest. All those who fail are suddenly kicked off the team and never heard of again (except on the show's reunion). Only those deemed worthy of judges survive. Where does Scripture teach that only those who achieve the high marks are worthy? In fact, it teaches that God chooses the weak of the world to confound the mighty.

The idea which is prevelant in my part of the country that if you have "good blood" and money you are somehow better than others. If you are part of the elite, you are better.

This thinking seems to have crept into the America's churches, America's schools, corporations, etc.

If we think about American politics. Whereas once, men were involved in politics in order to benefit the individual. Now we see the government making decisions based on the good of the government.

Consider JFK's famous words "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

What do you think?

 

[Peairtach]

Take the TV programs Survivor, Project Runway, Dancing with the Stars, etc. All of which present in some form the survival of the fittest. All those who fail are suddenly kicked off the team and never heard of again (except on the show's reunion). Only those deemed worthy of judges survive. Where does Scripture teach that only those who achieve the high marks are worthy? In fact, it teaches that God chooses the weak of the world to confound the mighty.

There were competitions before Darwin, and those who did the best got the prize. I don't think this is necessarily Darwinistic but common sense.

What is more worrying is a wrong-headed egalitarianism where everyone is expected to get prizes. This leads to dumbing-down in e.g. schools and universities.

People are "equal" but different.

 

[JBaldwin]

There were competitions before Darwin, and those who did the best got the prize. I don't think this is necessarily Darwinistic but common sense.

There is nothing wrong with competition, in fact, competition helps us work harder. What disturbs me about these programs, and granted, not all of the programs have this feature, is that the others in the competition are the ones who get to choose the winners or vote others off.

When Gatto says society is about "good breeding" which is what Darwinists call "positive eugenics", I think he is spot on. What I see in American society is push for "good breeding" you do better if you go to the best schools, the best churches and work for the best corporations. This is different than doing your best.



I agree, "People are 'equal' but different.

 

[SRoper]

Why does eugenics require Darwinism? Doesn't it merely depend on the concept of heredity?

And how do shows like Survivor promote Darwinism or even Mendelian inheritance? Does the show care whether a contestant's skills are acquired or inherited? Don't all tournaments end with one winner? It seems rather anachronistic to attribute this to Darwinism.

 

[JBaldwin]

Why does eugenics require Darwinism? Doesn't it merely depend on the concept of heredity?

And how do shows like Survivor promote Darwinism or even Mendelian inheritance? Does the show care whether a contestant's skills are acquired or inherited? Don't all tournaments end with one winner? It seems rather anachronistic to attribute this to Darwinism.

The father of eugenics, Sir Francis Galton was Darwin's cousin and based his theories on Darwin's work.

I did not say that these shows promote Darwinism, but rather that they are Darwinistic, and when I say that, I mean philisophically.

 

[jwright82]

Society, after Darwin, was incontrovertibly about good breeding. That was the only true goal it had, or scientifically could have. Before Darwin, the view of historical development which fit best with Anglo/American tradition was a conception of individual rights independent of any theory of reciprocal obligations to the State; the duty of leaders was to Society, not to Government, a crucial distinction in perfect harmony with the teachings of Reformation Christianity, which extended to all believers a conception of individual duty, individual responsibility, and a free will right to decide for oneself beyond any claims of states. John Calvin proclaimed in his Institutes that through natural law, the judgment of conscience alone was able to distinguish between justice and injustice. It’s hard for secular minds to face, but the powerful freedoms of the West, unmatched by any other society at any other time, are rooted deeply in a religion so radical, so demanding it revolts the modern temper.

--John Taylor Gatto

I came across this quotation last week while reading Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education. I've been pondering ever since. Despite his obvious misunderstanding of free will, I believe he makes a solid argument.

What I've been asking myself is "In what ways is our society Darwinistic?" Truth be told, I can hardly find a part of today's American society that isn't darwinistic.

Take the TV programs Survivor, Project Runway, Dancing with the Stars, etc. All of which present in some form the survival of the fittest. All those who fail are suddenly kicked off the team and never heard of again (except on the show's reunion). Only those deemed worthy of judges survive. Where does Scripture teach that only those who achieve the high marks are worthy? In fact, it teaches that God chooses the weak of the world to confound the mighty.

The idea which is prevelant in my part of the country that if you have "good blood" and money you are somehow better than others. If you are part of the elite, you are better.

This thinking seems to have crept into the America's churches, America's schools, corporations, etc.

If we think about American politics. Whereas once, men were involved in politics in order to benefit the individual. Now we see the government making decisions based on the good of the government.

Consider JFK's famous words "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

What do you think?

I noticed how pervasive it is the other day when I was watching the movie "Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs". In the movie the device becomes a self organized complexity of intellegence. That is what I call Darwinian logic, that things can randomly self organize into complex ordered systems. It is so pervasive in our society that our language has changed. One thing that people do not realize is that Darwin's ideas call everything into question. I heard a reseracher say that in regards to a Darwinian view of things human beings may not be able to claim the title of most intellegent animal, some insect has better more efficiant menas of survival therefore beating us out. But most people wouldn't naturaly think in those terms.

 

[Peairtach]

Eugenics was popular in many countries, but the Nazis gave it a knock. Now it is not politically correct to suggest that one race may have an advantage over another in e.g. sprinting. It is also politically incorrect to suggest that one race is closer to the apes than another. In fact this has affected how the evolution of man is interpreted in the post WW II era. According to current Darwinian theory all races are related to each other and all came from a single stock out of Africa. Before WW II it was much more acceptable to believe, and was more widely held, among scientists and others that some races are more advanced evolutionarily than others.

Abortion may be - and is being used - to weed out disabled children. As are the modern reproductive technologies. Godless Darwinism will mean that people's consciences are more easily seared regarding the killing of early human life. But I don't think it is Darwinism that is the motivating factor, but the desire for children without certain diseases or even physically and mentally perfect specimens. That doesn't justify the taking of, or experimenting on, early human life.

But even for Christians you are allowed to use sanctified common sense with regard to hereditary diseases and weaknesses, as long as you don't break God's law. E.g. If you believe that marrying a certain person will give you children with a certain serious disease I don't see that the Lord is against you taking that into account in your decision-making. Or if you believed that marrying your cousin or second cousin might be bad for your children's genes, is it wrong to take that into account?

 

[Matthias]

Why does eugenics require Darwinism? Doesn't it merely depend on the concept of heredity?

And how do shows like Survivor promote Darwinism or even Mendelian inheritance? Does the show care whether a contestant's skills are acquired or inherited? Don't all tournaments end with one winner? It seems rather anachronistic to attribute this to Darwinism.

The link between Darwinism and Eugenics is strong, in fact you could say they are blood related! The concept of eugenics is just a logical progression of the mindset of darwinism. A study of the two is fascinating, but sad and disgusting at the same time.

 

[JBaldwin]

Why does eugenics require Darwinism? Doesn't it merely depend on the concept of heredity?

And how do shows like Survivor promote Darwinism or even Mendelian inheritance? Does the show care whether a contestant's skills are acquired or inherited? Don't all tournaments end with one winner? It seems rather anachronistic to attribute this to Darwinism.

The link between Darwinism and Eugenics is strong, in fact you could say they are blood related! The concept of eugenics is just a logical progression of the mindset of darwinism. A study of the two is fascinating, but sad and disgusting at the same time.

So true, and yes, it is disgusting and sad. An interesting film that got me started thinking about all of this a few years ago is the film "Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed". What is even more sad is that as Richard mentioned, eugenics has gone underground in the form of abortion, birth control, etc.

 

[Matthias]

Why does eugenics require Darwinism? Doesn't it merely depend on the concept of heredity?

And how do shows like Survivor promote Darwinism or even Mendelian inheritance? Does the show care whether a contestant's skills are acquired or inherited? Don't all tournaments end with one winner? It seems rather anachronistic to attribute this to Darwinism.

The link between Darwinism and Eugenics is strong, in fact you could say they are blood related! The concept of eugenics is just a logical progression of the mindset of darwinism. A study of the two is fascinating, but sad and disgusting at the same time.

So true, and yes, it is disgusting and sad. An interesting film that got me started thinking about all of this a few years ago is the film "Expelled--No Intelligence Allowed". What is even more sad is that as Richard mentioned, eugenics has gone underground in the form of abortion, birth control, etc.

Yes it has gone underground! search out the origins of Planned Parenthood.....or just about any organization like it. I have not seen the film you mentioned but I am going to have to check it out now

 

[Eoghan]

In education the emphasis is on "life skills" with a total absence of "character". We thus produce clever students but not wise students. Carry this over to politics - how many politicians can we describe as wise, of sound moral character - but I assure you almost all of them will be "clever". This emphasis on skills devoid of character I see as a pragmatic offshoot of dARWINISM (Social Darwinism?)

It used to be that when you "went into service" you needed character references. Now your references (for the most part) simply describe what you did in your last job.

In discussing pupil behaviour I have lost count of the references to animal instincts and coming down from the trees!

 

[SRoper]

That's fine, but eugenics doesn't require a belief in Darwinism, even if there is a historical connection. It merely requires a belief that traits can be inherited. In other words, if we reject Darwinism because eugenics follows, then we should become modern day Lysenkoists and deny Mendelian inheritance as well.

Let me ask, does trying to breed a better wheat crop or a better dog require belief in Darwinism? If the answer is no, why does trying to breed a better human require such a belief?

 

[JBaldwin]

That's fine, but eugenics doesn't require a belief in Darwinism, even if there is a historical connection. It merely requires a belief that traits can be inherited. In other words, if we reject Darwinism because eugenics follows, then we should become modern day Lysenkoists and deny Mendelian inheritance as well.

Let me ask, does trying to breed a better wheat crop or a better dog require belief in Darwinism? If the answer is no, why does trying to breed a better human require such a belief?

Breeding a better dog or a better crop of wheat is not eugenics. Eugenics deals with the controlled breeding and killing of humans for "purifying' and controlling populations. While I suppose a person who practices some form of eugenics could claim, "I'm not a follower of Darwin." the actual practice is Darwinistic.

 

[Peairtach]

Let me ask, does trying to breed a better wheat crop or a better dog require belief in Darwinism? If the answer is no, why does trying to breed a better human require such a belief?

And this was done long before Darwin. It would be interesting to know when the expression "good breeding" with respect to humans came into vogue.

When you read "The Origin of the Species" it seems that artificial selection by humans of dogs and farm animals was a lot to do with suggesting natural selection to Darwin's mind. But he made claims for natural selection that went far beyond what is possible.

 

[SRoper]

I was also wondering how old the the phrase "good breeding" is.

It seems to me that eugenics isn't Darwinistic at all. Darwinism has two major contributions: common descent and natural selection. Eugenics, on the other hand, is breeding applied to man. The idea that all species share a common ancestor is irrelevant to eugenics as breeding works regardless of whether man is a distant cousin of modern apes or not. Natural selection actually seems to be opposed to eugenics as eugenics decides that nature doesn't do a good enough job at the whole selection process (it doesn't work fast enough and has different selection criteria)--hence the need for a eugenics program. So how exactly is eugenics Darwinistic?

By the way, I think eugenics is wrong, and I don't believe that the Darwinian theory of common descent is correct. I just don't think it is correct or necessary to tie these two wrong ideas together.

 

[JBaldwin]

I was also wondering how old the the phrase "good breeding" is.

It seems to me that eugenics isn't Darwinistic at all. Darwinism has two major contributions: common descent and natural selection. Eugenics, on the other hand, is breeding applied to man. The idea that all species share a common ancestor is irrelevant to eugenics as breeding works regardless of whether man is a distant cousin of modern apes or not. Natural selection actually seems to be opposed to eugenics as eugenics decides that nature doesn't do a good enough job at the whole selection process (it doesn't work fast enough and has different selection criteria)--hence the need for a eugenics program. So how exactly is eugenics Darwinistic?

By the way, I think eugenics is wrong, and I don't believe that the Darwinian theory of common descent is correct. I just don't think it is correct or necessary to tie these two wrong ideas together.

While historically, I could agree that the idea of eugenics came along long before Darwin, the modern eugenics movement that hit its peak in the early 1900s was most definitely connected to Darwin and his ideas of common descent. Here is an excerpt from an article on the subject:

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species,[2] and, after a little digestion, caused a sensation. The idea of that traits were heritable yet mutable caused much confusion while percolating through the academic consciousness. Francis Galton, British scientist, cousin of Darwin and founder of human genetics,[3] compiled a work [English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture] in which he noted that very accomplished Britishers tended to be blood relatives of other very accomplished Britishers. From this study, Galton decided that being accomplished was something one could pass down through generations, like hair color.

History House: Eugenics Part I: You Can’t Keep a Good Idiot Down


Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is hardly a historican I've read on the subject who would not link the modern eugenics movement to Darwin and his ideas about common descent.

 

[Peairtach]

How Darwinistic are we...really?

The question's "we" is maybe rather broad, anyway.

If you're talking about me or other people on the PB, I'd hope we weren't Darwinistic at all, and also for Reformed Christians generally.

The broader Christian Church has accepted "theistic" evolution in large swathes, as has society generally accepted theistic evolution or atheistic evolution.

Regarding Qs like whether your children are to inherit diseases or not, this will have been a consideration of Christian people from time immemorial e.g. avoiding marrying first cousins. I don't consider such concerns to be Darwinistic but commonsensical, as long as techniques like abortion which are sinful are eschewed.

In the culture the Darwinistic and evolutionary ideas are out there and have an influence, tending towards atheism and ungodly behaviour. The more consistent atheism is in society, you end up with deadend societies like North Korea and Rumania under Communism.

There is hardly a historican I've read on the subject who would not link the modern eugenics movement to Darwin and his ideas about common descent.

I think Darwin's having "proven" that animals and Man were related, and having given further ammunition for atheism or practical atheism, gave the justification for applying the improving breeding techniques applied to domestic and farmed animals to Man i.e. eugenics. But after WW II eugenics got a bad name and became politically incorrect. It even became politically incorrect to suggest that one group of people had a physical or mental advantage over another group of people.

I'm not aware of Christian people having peculiar moral objections to making better e.g. cows through artificial selection.