DI, WND simpletons beat the “Darwin = eugenics!” drum

It’s bad enough that the ID crowd cannot mention biological evolution without mentioning Charles Darwin, as if the entire discipline rests on the doings of one man; no doubt they think this way because Christianity is dependent on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, without whom the entire enterprise collapses.
What’s even sillier is the consistent efforts by reality-resisters to link evolution — and in particular the scientific reality thereof — with human eugenics experiments, as if the man most closely identified with the original theories of natural selection and common descent is uniquely responsible for subsequent abuses of “his” ideas, even those that occured far from where he lived and long after his death.
While we’re at it, let’s blame the Wright Brothers for PanAm 103, Henry Ford for the Pinto fiasco, and the Curies for Chernobyl.
The latest culprit is actually an article at (where else?) WorldNut daily, to which one Anika Smith (a DI newcomer, I believe) enthusiastically links.
Casey, put a leash on this puppy, because she’s making you all look even worse. Besides, you’ve already tried this one.


The WND piece is standard anti-science spittle, stating that “eugenics clearly drew inspiration from Darwin’s theory,” that eugenics proponent Francis Galton was Darwin’s cousin, that Darwin himself wrote “No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this has been highly injurious to the race of man. … Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed,” and that only the horrors of the Holocaust stemmed the inexorable tide of eugenics in the supposedly enlightened Western world.
Never mind that Galton was opposed to the radical ideas about state-run breeding programs later proposed or embraced by social engineers and whack-jobs like George Bernard Shaw; forget that Darwin was not advocating what the WND shill suggests he was, as he went on to clarify in The Descent of Man (p. 168):
Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of 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 an overwhelming present evil.
Whoever Logan Paul Gage is, he’s no foe of flat-out lying. He and his comrades, firmly entrenched in some long-dead century and backwater thinking about the world, are all about smearing an idea that simply doesn’t sit well with rabid Jesus fans and framing it in morally unacceptable terms. While these human one-irons perseverate and bleat about how mean and nasty “Darwinists” are, they lie just as shamelessly as common sociopaths.
Of course, we can go the other way and pretend that Charles Darwin was the most racist, black-hearted, evil human being of his time, determined to weed out the inadequates and scrapes in our midst and fantasizing constantly about firebombing churches. Would this have any impact at all on the validity of the body of knowledge about evolution that has accumulated in the past 100-plus years? Of course not.
This is what these publicity buzzards do in lieu of even-handedly criticizing the contemporary literature and research supporting evolution (which, of course, is impossible to do sensibly) or acknowledging something that is self-evident — that evolutionary biologists are not exactly known for rushing headlong into eugenics territory: They quote-mine from Darwin’s work and hearken to “Darwinian-based” atrocities perpetrated 60-80 years ago by the worst humankind had to offer. They appeal to the emotional hot spots and practiced ignorance of the dull knives in the drawer of faith,which any twit can do by making a sufficient amount of noise, often while smiling,wearing a suit, and dispatching meaningless terms like “specified complexity” or bastardized versions of “information.”
Never mind that evolutionary biologists are just as appalled as anyone else that such things as forced sterilization could be visited on anyone. It’s all about tarring evolution in every possible way, no matter how ludicrous and dishonest the arguments are. When it comes to evolution, people should follow the D. James Kennedy rule: If it comes from Kennedy, it’s lies slathered in bullshit.
If this is a fair and reasonable tactic, then it’s certainly valid to point toward the most-read book in the world and remind everyone that, far from a vessel bearing unique messages of love and compassion, it recounts and even celebrates genocide, rape, incest and inbreeding, misogyny, homophobia, infanticide, slavery, various modes of wanton and gratuitous violence, racial and ethnic prejudice, blame-shifting, torture, and unspeakable cruelties visited upon innocent children, animals, and even plants. That book would be the Bible, and according most of to these selfsame anti-evolutionists it’s the only book a Christian really needs. I’d say Darwin’s books have a way to go to catch up with all of these solecisms.
The reasoning is identical: On page after page, the Bible glorifies sexual assault, gender iniquities, and murder. Not only did these things happen all throughout human history, they still do, and in highly Christianized societies at that. Therefore religion is pure evil and should be dissolved. Couldn’t be simpler!
Time for a new tactic, DI.

10 thoughts on “DI, WND simpletons beat the “Darwin = eugenics!” drum”

  1. See, but we’re too nice to do that. Creationists are kind of like terrorists in that they play on the essential honesty/openness of science, as terrorists do on the societies they attack (I’m not saying they are terrorists). It’s not just anathema for a scientist to say something he/she knows not to be true, it’s a contradiction in terms. That’s why you don’t get quote mining of creationists (not that you would really need it in any case).
    If we played it the creationists’ way, this “debate” would be over in a day. If it was really more important to scientists that abiogenesis occurred than finding the truth, then we could just make it up (y’know, the way they do their ‘research’). We could actually invent abiogenesis tomorrow – a few pretty Photoshopped gels and we’ve got self-replicating RNA. If we’re this big, homogenous conspiracy, then who’s going to prove us wrong? Nobody else has the background knowledge to counter the literally millions of scientists who are supposedly so committed to the ‘lie of Darwinism’ that they’re willing to do anything it takes.
    And that’s why creationists are like terrorists. If we stooped to terrorists’ level – abolished *all* civil liberties and nuked anyone we don’t like, terrorism would disappear tomorrow. Same thing with creationism – if we adopted their tactics, it would disappear tomorrow. Both ideologies rely on the essential decency of the other side.

  2. You know, that Einstein guy slept around, and his theories lead directly to the atomic bomb. Therefore E does not equal m-c-squared.
    Eugenics if anything is intelligent design, not evolution. It’s the result of a conscious effort to impart design on biology.

  3. If we played it the creationists’ way, this “debate” would be over in a day. If it was really more important to scientists that abiogenesis occurred than finding the truth, then we could just make it up (y’know, the way they do their ‘research’).

    There are scientists who try that sort of thing from time to time. It seldom works for long. The idea that fraud is a simple and sure route to success is popular, but there is plenty of evidence that it is neither simple nor sure.

    If we stooped to terrorists’ level – abolished *all* civil liberties and nuked anyone we don’t like, terrorism would disappear tomorrow.

    History is filled with numerous and varied totalitarian governments. All suffered terrorism from time to time. And today – it is nations like Canada, Scandanavia, Western Europe, and .. yes, the USA, 9/11 notwithstanding – that suffer the least terrorism. The correlation between civil liberties and lower rates of terrorist attack indicates that we should treat claims that civil liberties favor terrorism skeptically.

  4. and research supporting evolution (which, of course, is impossible to do sensibly)

    Watch out for the next quote-mine. ;-)
    Darwin was analyzing the effects of modern civilization in the text you are referring to AFAIK. If he had been analyzing eugenics, I’m not so sure he would have found it self-evidently viable.
    In the same vein, someone noted earlier that in as much as such a practice reduces natural variation before natural selection or drift it is in a sense working against evolution as such.
    For (a much strained) example, what if earlier societies killed or prevented milk drinkers from procreating successfully?

  5. and research supporting evolution (which, of course, is impossible to do sensibly)

    Watch out for the next quote-mine. ;-)
    Darwin was analyzing the effects of modern civilization in the text you are referring to AFAIK. If he had been analyzing eugenics, I’m not so sure he would have found it self-evidently viable.
    In the same vein, someone noted earlier that in as much as such a practice reduces natural variation before natural selection or drift it is in a sense working against evolution as such.
    For (a much strained) example, what if earlier societies killed or prevented milk drinkers from procreating successfully?

  6. and research supporting evolution (which, of course, is impossible to do sensibly)

    Watch out for the next quote-mine. ;-)
    Darwin was analyzing the effects of modern civilization in the text you are referring to AFAIK. If he had been analyzing eugenics, I’m not so sure he would have found it self-evidently viable.
    In the same vein, someone noted earlier that in as much as such a practice reduces natural variation before natural selection or drift it is in a sense working against evolution as such.
    For (a much strained) example, what if earlier societies killed or prevented milk drinkers from procreating successfully?

  7. The really important question, about which I have done considerable reasearch, and consultatation with the Einstein Papers Project (located adjacent to the Caltech campus) is this:
    Did Einstein sleep with Marilyn Monroe? Each has an endearingly autographed photo of the other, Marilyn famously explained that she found smart men sexy (and put Einstein at the top of the IQ list), and Einstein was somewhat polygamous. The status of both Special and General Relativity hangs in the balance…

  8. From WND:

    Darwin himself wrote “No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this has been highly injurious to the race of man. … Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed,”

    Well, it’s clear: knowledge of Animal Husbandry leads to eugenics. Ban the Future Farmers of America from our nation’s schools!

  9. “The idea that creationists are simple-minded, the 21st-century equivalent of flat-earthers, is contradicted by the Willhelm family, who are typical of home-schoolers in that they are white and professional. Kevin Willhelm, 40, is a lawyer with his own practice in Abilene; his wife, Stacy, 38, is a former schoolteacher who has been home-schooling Austin, 12, Dillon, eight, and Lauren, three, since 2000, after hearing of the idea at church.”
    What the fuck is this nonsense? Has the writer never heard of white, professional simpletons, hillbilly lawyers or dumbass schoolteachers?
    These people are teaching their children to chant Bible verses. It doesn’t get more mindless than that.
    “Texas is one of the few states that does not monitor or regulate home-schooling…”
    Strange, isn’t it? You’d think a bastion of cultural progress like Texas would be far more concerned with education than religion, but surprisingly they’d rather regulate dildo sales than academics.

Comments are closed.