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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Huck Turner) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [snip]
> > 
> > Let's make this case very simply one more time. Apparently many of you
> > Darwinists don't come near to having the intelligence of Darwin.
> > 
> > Let me be as perspicuous as possible.
> > 
> > WHAT IS SOCIAL DARWINISM:
> > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism
> > 
> > "a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage
> > over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority."
> > 
> > Did Darwin hold that theory? Here is one OF MANY very clear
> > expressions of it:
> > 
> > "we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened
> > period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave,
> > patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less
> > favored nations." (Darwin, Descent of Man, 1874, p. 142).
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> Let's look at the full context of this quote. The paragraph begins:
> 
> "The remarkable success of the English as colonists, compared to other
> European nations, has been ascribed to their "daring and persistent
> energy"; a result which is well illustrated by comparing the progress
> of the Canadians of English and French extraction; but who can say how
> the English gained their energy?"
> 
> By asking this question, we can see that he is not automatically
> attributing the apparent success of the English to *racial*
> superiority. He continues:
> 
> "There is apparently much truth in the belief that the wonderful
> progress of the United States, as well as the character of the people,
> are the results of natural selection; for the more energetic,
> restless, and courageous men from all parts of Europe have emigrated
> during the last ten or twelve generations to that great country, and
> have there succeeded best."
> 
> He here proposes one explanation for the source of the "energy" that
> could lead one group to overcome another. He prefaces this explanation
> with the tentative "there is *apparently* much truth...", but even
> someone who embraces this view wholeheartedly is still not necessarily
> arguing that qualities like being "more energetic, restless, and
> courageous" are biologically heritable traits. My understanding is
> that he is just saying that these traits are expected to be found in
> people who emigrate and so the society that they form should be
> expected to flourish as a result. He hasn't said whether he thinks
> these traits are biologically or culturally determined. He is just
> talking about a process that could cause an increase in the
> concentration of people with these traits in one area.

Darwin speaks very clearly that such traits are INHERITED in Chapter 5
of Descent of man

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_05.html

> "Looking to the distant future, I do not think that the Rev. Mr.
> Zincke takes an exaggerated view when he says:*(2) "All other series
> of events- as that which resulted in the culture of mind in Greece,
> and that which resulted in the empire of Rome- only appear to have
> purpose and value when viewed in connection with, or rather as
> subsidiary to... the great stream of Anglo-Saxon emigration to the
> west." Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilisation, we
> can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened
> period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave,
> patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less
> favoured nations."
> 
> This is an extremely insightful comment given the dramatic rise of the
> United States as a centre of power in the twentieth century. From my
> experience of the culture of the US, its people do appear to have a
> lot of jingoistic 'energy' which makes it very strong especially when
> the news media is unable to criticise its government for fear of being
> viewed as unpatriotic. The US is strong in part because internal
> descent is suppressed. This is why patriotism (chauvinism for the
> state) is such a successful meme.
> 
> Okay, back to your criticism of it. He is saying that civilizations
> composed of such individuals would "generally prevail" over others.
> This is true if all else is equal (equal military strength/experience,
> equal resources available to both sides, etc.). But Darwin
> acknowledged in the following paragraph that all else is not generally
> equal:
> 
> "With highly civilized nations continued progress depends in a
> subordinate degree on Natural Selection; for such nations do not
> supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes... The more
> efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education
> during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard
> of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the
> laws, customs, and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public
> opinion."
> 
> He makes it clear that "continued progress depends in a subordinate
> degree on Natural Selection" and cites a number of "more efficient
> causes of progress" that are social rather than heritable. In short,
> he is arguing that continued progress occurs via a form of cultural
> selection rather than selection based on biologically heritable
> traits. This is a clear rejection of social Darwinism.

Darwin was unequivocal in stating that intelligence is a naturally
selected trait, and that it is also passed to offspring:

"In a tribe thus rendered more numerous there would always be a rather
greater chance of the birth of other superior and inventive members.
If such men left children to inherit their mental superiority, the
chance of the birth of still more ingenious members would be somewhat
better, and in a very small tribe decidedly better. Even if they left
no children, the tribe would still include their blood-relations; and
it has been ascertained by agriculturists* that by preserving and
breeding from the family of an animal, which when slaughtered was
found to be valuable, the desired character has been obtained."

What is so interesting to me about the way in which Darwinists have
been bending over backwards to defend him is the way that you are
approaching his writings the way a Fundamentalist approaches the
bible.

What you are doing is akin to a creationist hemming and hawing about
the first Chapter of Genesis in order to defend it as a scientifically
legitimate document. The gymnastics necessary to do so are hilarious.

And here we have Darwin's writings which are as racist as the Bible is
unscientific, and what do Darwin's "believers" do: they do everything
they can to extricate their savior from aspersions.

In the end it just goes to show that Darwinists aren't objective,
scientific, academics, but rather ideologues with a religious zeal for
their faith in evolution.

Searle