I've been having a discussion with someone on FB, who claims that Darwin supported eugenics, largely based on this page:

From Descent of Man.

It is my interpetation that, while Darwin does argue it's better for species to let the 'lesser' members die off, at no point in this page does he advocate that humans actively kill 'lesser' humans or prevent their propogation.
Anyone agree or disagree that's a reasonable interpetation?

Have not read the book but it says on the page: we must bear ... so I do not see how it could be interpreted as advocating elimination. btw I do not agree with the notion that affects of the weak surviving and propagating are bad.

He's expressly not supporting eugenics based on that page of the book. He's saying it would be better for the species, but to neglect the weak is a "certain and great present evil."
There's no question, he doesn't support eugenics.

tuco wrote:Have not read the book but it says on the page: we must bear ... so I do not see how it could be interpreted as advocating elimination. btw I do not agree with the notion that affects of the weak surviving and propagating are bad.

Case in point, Steven Hawking. He can't walk or even talk, but he's contributed a lot for the better of the species. More than Mr. & Ms. Universe, Olympians, the winner of the Boston Marathon, etc.
This is where humans differ from other species. We write stuff down and the cerebral contributions add up. If we didn't have vaccines, yada yada, but we do.

Ah, it's this old chestnut again. Except that, of course, since the full text is online here among other places, it's easy to check whether the familiar tiresome creationist assertions are something other than the products of creationists' rectal passages. We start with the opening sentences, viz:

Darwin Descent of Man wrote:Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.—In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,10 and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.11. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors.

So Darwin immediately opens the account by referring to three other authors, to whom he attributes the majority of the subsequent text. In short, many of the ideas he's presenting are explicitly stated as arising from someone else. That's the first reason creationist assertions on this subject are bullshit.

We move on to that remaining text, viz:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;

Well that blows the assertions out of the water, doesn't it? Let's take a look at those two bolded sentences again:

Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.

but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.

In short, Darwin explicitly states, with those two sentences, that intentional application of a ruthless selection process to our fellow humans, would come with a terrible cost. This is about as anti-eugenic a stance as one could wish for.

Furthermore, Darwin goes on, from those words, in later passages, to explain how we humans have put in place, either by accident or design, our own alternative selection processes, and delivered some interesting observations on the workings thereof.

Indeed, I'm minded to note at this juncture, that neoliberal right wing politicians, implementing policies deliberately aimed at increasing the impoverishment and destitution of the poor, sick and disabled, are making Darwin's remarks above about the cost to our ethical and intellectual character, as a species, of implementing such measures, depressingly prophetic.

Calilasseia wrote:Ah, it's this old chestnut again. Except that, of course, since the full text is online here among other places, it's easy to check whether the familiar tiresome creationist assertions are something other than the products of creationists' rectal passages. We start with the opening sentences, viz:

Darwin Descent of Man wrote:Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.—In the last and present chapters I have considered the advancement of man from a former semi-human condition to his present state as a barbarian. But some remarks on the agency of natural selection on civilised nations may be here worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,10 and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.11. Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors.

So Darwin immediately opens the account by referring to three other authors, to whom he attributes the majority of the subsequent text. In short, many of the ideas he's presenting are explicitly stated as arising from someone else. That's the first reason creationist assertions on this subject are bullshit.

We move on to that remaining text, viz:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind;

Well that blows the assertions out of the water, doesn't it? Let's take a look at those two bolded sentences again:

Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.

but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.

In short, Darwin explicitly states, with those two sentences, that intentional application of a ruthless selection process to our fellow humans, would come with a terrible cost. This is about as anti-eugenic a stance as one could wish for.

Furthermore, Darwin goes on, from those words, in later passages, to explain how we humans have put in place, either by accident or design, our own alternative selection processes, and delivered some interesting observations on the workings thereof.

Indeed, I'm minded to note at this juncture, that neoliberal right wing politicians, implementing policies deliberately aimed at increasing the impoverishment and destitution of the poor, sick and disabled, are making Darwin's remarks above about the cost to our ethical and intellectual character, as a species, of implementing such measures, depressingly prophetic.

Those are the exact same points I made to my interlocutor, so I'm happy to see, it's not just my idiosyncratic interpetation of that text.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Those are the exact same points I made to my interlocutor, so I'm happy to see, it's not just my idiosyncratic interpetation of that text.

Indeed, it is not "interpretation" at all. It is reading the whole thing to understand it; rather than cherry picking minable misquotes.

Greyman wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Those are the exact same points I made to my interlocutor, so I'm happy to see, it's not just my idiosyncratic interpetation of that text.

Indeed, it is not "interpretation" at all. It is reading the whole thing to understand it; rather than cherry picking minable misquotes.

To give an update, my interlocutor seems either incapable or unwilling to distinguish between giving an explanation of survivial of the fittest from a claim/argument that eugenics is a good thing.

For sure, Darwin was no social Darwinist.

I keep pointing out to the guy, that when Darwin talks about survivial of the fittest and how Western civilisations deal with 'weaker' members of the species, he's providing a descriptive, not a prescriptive account.

Quelle surprise, he doesn't accept evolution.

He just admitted he has no rational basis to accuse PP of supporting eugenics.
So when I asked him why he believes something he has no rational basis for, his reply is this:

Good question. Now you're asking right questions. I simply accept that simply because whatever behind with evolution will never be good unless evolution is removed from its foundation. Since evolution is racist from its core, then whoever practices on it must be racist and since it's about reproductive health, it's eugenics too.

That's all. But it certainly began evil and I'm sure it's bad till now. Somehow.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:He just admitted he has no rational basis to accuse PP of supporting eugenics.
So when I asked him why he believes something he has no rational basis for, his reply is this:

Good question. Now you're asking right questions. I simply accept that simply because whatever behind with evolution will never be good unless evolution is removed from its foundation. Since evolution is racist from its core, then whoever practices on it must be racist and since it's about reproductive health, it's eugenics too.

That's all. But it certainly began evil and I'm sure it's bad till now. Somehow.

:picardL

Where do you find idiots of this calibre? And why isn't this specimen in a cage at the zoo with a sign on the bars saying "Do not feed or tease the occupants of this cage"?

Calilasseia wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:He just admitted he has no rational basis to accuse PP of supporting eugenics.
So when I asked him why he believes something he has no rational basis for, his reply is this:

Good question. Now you're asking right questions. I simply accept that simply because whatever behind with evolution will never be good unless evolution is removed from its foundation. Since evolution is racist from its core, then whoever practices on it must be racist and since it's about reproductive health, it's eugenics too.

That's all. But it certainly began evil and I'm sure it's bad till now. Somehow.

:picardL

Where do you find idiots of this calibre? And why isn't this specimen in a cage at the zoo with a sign on the bars saying "Do not feed or tease the occupants of this cage"?

FB, some of my friends like trawling creationist and other apologist sites, so sometimes I'll add a comment as well.
I've now blocked this person as he kept asserting that his interpetation was correct, because he knows it is correct, kept ignoring my corrections and in general kept gish galloping form one claimi to another.

Basically his 'argument' came down to this:
Darwin claims some species are higher/better evolved than others.
Therefore he discriminates.
Darwin claims intelligence is based on brain size.
Therefore less intelligent persons are less evolved.
Darwin says that caring for less evolved members of a species leads to the extinction of said species.
Therefore Darwin favors eugenics.

He failed to present an in-context quote that demonstrates Darwin believed in the concept of higher and lower evolution.
He failed to demonstrate that Darwin believed intelligence was purely derived from brain size and that therefore less intelligent people are less evolved.
He refused to acknowledge that Dawkins was merely describing how natural selection works in natural environments, rather than making the prescritpive claim that 'lesser' humans should be killed or prevented from being married/procreating.

Ah, it is the olde, "I don't care about what the actual evidence is; you mustn't teach evilution because (my misunderstanding of) it causes bad ideas."

Calilasseia wrote:Ah, it's this old chestnut again. Except that, of course, since the full text is online here among other places, it's easy to check whether the familiar tiresome creationist assertions are something other than the products of creationists' rectal passages.

Yet another example of the rule of thumb that persons who bolster their position with a picture of an excerpt of a text rather than a link to the the entire document tend to hope the person they're trying to argue with doesn't read the actual document.