Evolution leads to totalitarianism

[McCulloch]

Also, in denying humanity's original descent from Adam and Eve, and our modern descent from one of Noah's three sons, neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of non-human beings in Africa inevitably become totalitarian, religious and racist.

Does evolutionary science inevitably lead to totalitarianism, religion and racism? How?

[plunge]

Since he admittedly incorporated the ideas of Malthus, it must be noted that Malthusian population projections do not apply to industrial societies as demonstrated over and over by historians. Once the Malthusian trap is broken, as has been the case ever since the Renaissance, biological evolutionary principles like natural selection no longer apply to human societies.

Do people still have differential reproductive success? Then natural selection still applies. While Malthusian resource crunches are continually beat back by advances in technology, that doesn't mean that evolution and natural selection no longer operate on human beings. Strong selection pressures like extremely limited resources can certainly provide startling examples of natural selection, but selection is at work even without them.

[Jose]

Since he admittedly incorporated the ideas of Malthus, it must be noted that Malthusian population projections do not apply to industrial societies as demonstrated over and over by historians. Once the Malthusian trap is broken, as has been the case ever since the Renaissance, biological evolutionary principles like natural selection no longer apply to human societies.

Do people still have differential reproductive success? Then natural selection still applies. While Malthusian resource crunches are continually beat back by advances in technology, that doesn't mean that evolution and natural selection no longer operate on human beings. Strong selection pressures like extremely limited resources can certainly provide startling examples of natural selection, but selection is at work even without them.

I think you are absolutely right, plunge. As long as humans reproduce according to their kind, and use genetic inheritance as the mechanism of transmitting genes from parents to offspring, and as long as some people have more kids than others, evolution will occur.

So far we've escaped Malthus's predicted fate. However, there is a maximum carrying capacity of the earth. We are on target to reach it. There are subtle clues that we're pretty close--like the fact that the vast majority of commercial fish stocks are in decline, with some having crashed. Once we eat all the wild fish in the sea, we may be able to replace them with fish farms, but even this will be tricky, since our current practice is to feed the farmed fish with smaller fish that were "harvested" commercially. And, until some genetic engineering is done, they won't eat soybeans because they are toxic to them.

But this is somewhat off-topic.

Eugenics was based simply on the principles of crop breeding. Sure, you can call it a use of evolutionary principles, but the same principles had been in use for thousands of years under the name of agriculture. Who knows--maybe it's being practiced somewhere on the sly. It's just a matter of arranged marriages, after all.

Quite frankly, I find this (kindly provided by snappyanswer) to be really weird:

Introduction to Eugenics
The principal manifestations of eugenics are racism and abortion; eugenics is the basis for "scientific racism" and laid the foundation for legalizing abortion. It is the driving force behind euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, and embryo and fetal research. It is the driving force in global population policy, which is a key element in American foreign policy. It is the force driving much of the environmentalist movement, welfare policy, welfare reform, and health care. It is found in anthropology, sociology, psychologyall the social sciences. It is reflected in much American literature, especially science fiction.

Why weird? Well, think about it. Eugenics would aim at developing "better people," by the methods of crop breeding--kinda like breeding sheepdogs by selecting for particular characteristics. How does racism get in there? Are they imagining that members of one race would consistently marry members of that same race? Uhh...that's pretty common even without the label of "eugenics." It's also pretty common that members of one religion marry members of the same religion. Why not say that eugenics is the founding principle of "marrying within your church"?

What about abortion? This is goofy. Abortion requires aborting an embryo that has not yet developed to term. How can you tell whether an individual has the characteristics you want if you abort them before you can tell? Let's see you select your sheepdogs by aborting the ones that don't have the herding instinct. Can you test whether an embryo has a herding instinct? No. You wait until it's grown up enough to run around chasing sheep. This is the opposite of abortion! It requires development to term and beyond. The only way to make eugenics work is to decide which adults have kids and which ones don't.

I suppose you could kill the individuals you don't want to use as parents--the euthanasia bit referred to above. But, of course, it's not necessary. All that matters is who has kids and who doesn't.

In vitro fertilization? Huh? Isn't the driving force with this the desire of couples to have kids? I'd think this would be strongly supported by Christians.

The environmental movement? How do they make this link? The environmental movement is aimed at protecting the environment--so that we don't hit that carrying capacity too soon! It's also known as "stewardship" which, as I recall, god told us to do. Why would Christians think the environmental movement is bad? I bet it's because it's anti-Republican values, favoring stewardship over raze-and-build development and getting-money-at-all-costs. Remember, it's the R's who disparage environmentalists. Christians should all be members of the environmental movement!

Enough already.

Suffice it to say that it appears to be really easy to say that evolution causes all kinds of bad things. We can find lots of quotes to that effect. But when we examine these statements, we find them to have no basis in fact. For this bit, concerning eugenics, it's pretty clear that much of it is entirely unfounded.

We're back to the general observation of people saying "evolution is bad" and then listing a bunch of things that are bad, in hopes that putting them in the same paragraph will make people believe they are linked.

[1John2_26]

We're back to the general observation of people saying "evolution is bad" and then listing a bunch of things that are bad, in hopes that putting them in the same paragraph will make people believe they are linked.

But what about observation leading to a conclusion. You throw a pebble up and it falls. You have evolution you have immorality spread by a totalitarian liberal educational process. No dissent allowed.

Same laws occuring.

In vitro fertilization? Huh? Isn't the driving force with this the desire of couples to have kids? I'd think this would be strongly supported by Christians.

As usual, science and Christianity agree. Darwinian concpets applied to a superior mind. Noet that procreation is still man-woman.

The environmental movement? How do they make this link? The environmental movement is aimed at protecting the environment--so that we don't hit that carrying capacity too soon! It's also known as "stewardship" which, as I recall, god told us to do. Why would Christians think the environmental movement is bad? I bet it's because it's anti-Republican values, favoring stewardship over raze-and-build development and getting-money-at-all-costs. Remember, it's the R's who disparage environmentalists. Christians should all be members of the environmental movement!

California is oh-so leftist and environmental concerns are a joke as is the growing strip-mall/home developement syndrome. No one but the very rich can afford a home in California. And Illinois where corn fields are rapidly becoming clone-home developements for as far as the eye can see.

Both leftist shrines.

What Christians shun are the parasitic anti-Christian's and immoral PAC's that plague the Democrats like an STD to a MTV fanatic.

Otherwise many more conservative minded people (that are not Christians) would choose the party of pitiless high taxation and enslaving welfare handouts. It keeps the sedated criminals in inner cities and away from the suburbs.

[Chimp]

Noet that procreation is still man-woman.

Wouldn't that be semen-filled plastic tube and a woman?

What Christians shun are the parasitic anti-Christian's and immoral PAC's

Like Abramoff? Or Delay's money laundering? Big tobacco?

I appreciate your zeal in defending your party, but you might consider
looking at them with the same critical eye you view the rest of the world.
Christian does not necessarily mean good...just someone trying to be good.