Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:

> Carol Lee Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> > > > > > No such thing. It's called Social Darwinism, but it's a bastardization of
> > > > > > Darwin's ideas in natural history in to social theory. It doesn't work
> > > > > > there. Social Darwinism has nothing really to do with Darwin,

> > > > > Wrong. Dead Wrong.

> > > > I think you are the one who is dead wrong.

> > And I still do.

 > > > >  > http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper60h.html
 > > > >  > http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/ls172.htm
 > > > >  > http://www.gennet.org/metro15.htm
 > > > >  > http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111/opinion/wiker.html
 > > > >  > http://www.toolan.com/hitler/surplus.html#social

> > > >  > But most of all, see
> > > > > http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

> > > > > Again, I reiterate: Darwin promoted SOCIAL DARWINISM. That's the fact.

> > > > I don't think so.

> > > It can't get any clearer--

> > > "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those
> > > that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. 

> > Darwin was a man of his time.  I am sure what he expressed was not far out
> > of the mainstream of acceptable opinion during that era.

> You are absolutely correct. Thank you for being honest.

> This sounds like a veiled admission that you were overreaching when
> you said

> "Social Darwinism is a bastardization of Darwin's ideas in natural
> history in to social theory."

I did not say that.

You really should try to be more discriminating in your interpretation of
who has said what in this thread.

> If it is, then Darwin is one of the ones who bastardized it!

> > > Deal with Darwin's own words.

> > I do.  In temporal context.

> That's fine. You can blame his "social Darwinism" on any factor you
> want. Nonetheless, he did apply his theories of natural selection and
> evolution to racial superiority and inferiority... that is an
> undeniable reality however you slice it.

"When I say Darwinism is social, I mean it in two senses. First, in
Darwin's own work there was never a clear separation of his biological
research and thinking on the one hand, and its origins in and
extrapolation to social evolution or Social Darwinism on the other. I
don't find that conclusion very interesting, except as a stick with which
to beat positivists and Whigs of the higher orders."  
--Robert M. Young