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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote:
>Dick C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> ambrose searle wrote in talk.origins
>> as always you are either wrong or lying. I said that Darwin was wrong on
>> many points, you claimed that his theories had been refuted. There is a 
>> major difference. His theories have not been refuted. They have been 
>> improved upon and modified, but not refuted.
>
>Human racial superiority as a result of natural selection has been
>rejected by scholars like S.J. Gould.

That was not Darwin's theory.  Since you do not understand what a
theory is, you seem to persist in thinking that anything someone
writes is a theory; it isn't.  A theory is an explanation for a
phenomenon backed by sufficient scientific evidence that it convinces
other scientists.  

The observation of a phenomenon, even if described in highly biased or
subjective terms, is not a theory.  Much of what you've quoted from
Darwin are such subjectively biased observations.

>> Claimed but never proven. All we have ever seen are misinterpretations
>> of his writing by people who seem to think that casting aspersions on
>> Darwin's character somehow disproves science.
>
>If you can't understand that speaking of races as "inferior" and
>"superior" is racism, then you are incorrigible.

It is nowadays when we know that the classification of humans into
races is genetically unsupportable.  In the 1850s, when the only means
of determining the situation was ad-hoc observation of surface traits,
this was quite unclear, so reference to "races" was not unscientific.
Once you accept that reference to race could be scientific in the
given context, observation that a dark-skinned 'race' tends to be
"superior" in avoiding sunburn and eventual skin cancer is NOT racism.
It is a summary of observations.

>> >> > This was the beginning problem that led to this
>> >> > present thread: when Lechevalier said that Darwin held no theory of
>> >> > Social Darwinism.
>> >> 
>> >> No, the beginning of the problem is when you posted your lies to the 
>> >> usenet.
>> > 
>> > Your broad, unsupported assertion is typical.
>> 
>> What unsupported assertion? You lied, you posted them to the usenet.
>> and that is when our problem with your lies started.
>
>Is that the best you can do? "Liar liar pants on fire"? Deal with
>Darwin's words.

This (Darwin) thread started with the following exchange on 11/9:
>1. Some classes are mandatory for graduation. 2. Some people, based on
>financial situations, are compelled to attend the state university
>most affordable: an institution funded partially by public tax
>dollars, ergo, the proselyzation of atheism is publicly funded.
>
>> >> >> rushing up to thrust copies of Betrand Russell into your
>> >> >> hands and warning you of dire personal consenquences if you
>> >> >> didn't change your metaphysics?
>> >> >
>> >> >Some push Russell. More push Darwin and Marx.
>> >> 
>> >> Darwin is science, not religion or philosophy.
>> >
>> >That's what L.Ron Hubbard says too.
>> 
>> L. Ron did not pass peer review.

and it acquired the current subject line from Carol on 11/24 when she
posted:
>On 23 Nov 2003, ambrose searle wrote:
>> > >    To be Darwin's Theory of Social Evolution, DARWIN HIMSELF had to
>> > > propose it.
>
>> > >    What publication did Darwin do this in?
>
>> > 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.
>
> > 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


>> > Darwin's words are so clear that all one has to do is go right to his
>> > writings to see that he held the view  that individuals or groups
>> > achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological
>> > superiority.
>> 
>> That is common of victorian thought, and even more common among the
>> anti evolutionist. 
>> And that is something that you seem to be hell bent on ignoring.
>
>No objection from me. Some Non Darwinists were very racist too.
>
>Darwin, however, felt that he had scientific justification for racism.

Even if he did, that is not social Darwinism, because his view of
races was biological.  Social darwinism by necessity needs to have a
social component in order to justify the name and the classification
within sociology rather than biology.

>In a world where science is elevated to the most important status in
>determining what is appropriate for public education of children,

That was not the situation in Victorian England; in 21st century
America, kids don't read Darwin's books.

>> As a matter of fact, your entire premise is built upon your modern
>> understanding of everything, not any understanding of the way things
>> really were 150 years ago.
>
>As a matter of fact, Darwin used the theory of natural selection to
>show that WASPs are superior to Africans.

I don't think that you will find any reference to a race called
"WASPs" in Darwin's writings; nor do I think I saw "Africans" in the
quoted text.  It appears that he made observations about "civilized"
and "savage" races, but the latter were primarily those he had
observed in South America on the Beagle, who were therefore not
Africans.

lojbab
-- 
lojbab                                             [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org