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

> NOTE TO SEARLE: Darwin thought that *moral* faculties had a
> heritable component (we should not say genetic since they had
> no idea of genetics back then).
> 
> Most of Darwin's evaluation of civlized vs. savage was based
> on this.  And no, he did not conclude this based on his theory, 
> but had been raised with the sense of superiority of his culture 
> over "savage" ones.

Please cite Darwin where he says his terminology is not based on his
science but on his culture.

I have cited him using these terms in clear "scientific" discourse.

> His evaluation of the *intellectual* capacity of
> people in other races is that they were EQUAL.

Citation please.
 
> Kind of misleading to pin the label Social Darwinism on that,
> when the usual association is to the quite opposite conclusion.

Show me the cite in Darwin.

> > > Darwin was unequivocal in stating that intelligence is a naturally
> > > selected trait, and that it is also passed to offspring:
> 
> DUH!
> 
> That does not address Huck's argument.  If Social Darwinism is 
> *application* of Darwinism to explain (or recommend) increased success in
> *biological* terms, then doing so in terms of culture is NOT.

Darwin believed that some human groups were more intelligent than
another based on the environmental conditions that selected for higher
intelligence (viz., a cooler climate).

> > Intelligence is standardly regarded as having a genetic component so
> > it would be subject to natural selection in any environment in which
> > it provided a reproductive advantage (or disadvantage for that
> > matter). Does believing this make you a social Darwinist?
> 
> Perhaps he will ignore this question also.

I responded to it directly in another post.

> > > 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.
> 
> Are you equating racism with Social Darwinism?

Nope. Racism existed long before Darwin. Darwin & friends simply
provided what they believed was a "scientific" justification for
racism.

In a world where most everything that young children are taught is
supposed to be grounded in science, this doctrine is dangerous.

> > > 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.
> 
> You obviously don't know that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with
> biological evolution (including Darwin's theory of natural selection). 

Poppycock.

"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"

Darwin, DESCENT OF MAN, ch. 5.

> > I encourage you to pursue the points that I've made and highlight
> > where you think I have misrepresented Darwin's views.
> 
> Tracy P. Hamilton

Just be honest.