From Darwin’s Descent of Man

[loco]

Read/Discuss:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

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 the 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 the 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; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."  - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

[Dos Equis]

Read/Discuss:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

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 the 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 the 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; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."  - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

So this is how natural selection is supposed to work?  Sounds like Hitler's playbook. 

[gcb]

So this is how natural selection is supposed to work?  Sounds like Hitler's playbook. 

I don't see why you are complaining, seems to go right along with your right wing republican policies.

[Dos Equis]

I don't see why you are complaining, seems to go right along with your right wing republican policies.

I'm not complaining and I'm not a Republican. 

And what does this have to do with what Darwin said? 

[gcb]

You did mention Hitler - I assumed you were trying to reflect negatively on what Darwin said.

[Dos Equis]

You did mention Hitler - I assumed you were trying to reflect negatively on what Darwin said.

Trying?  Pretty obvious that Darwin sounds like a genocidal racist in that passage.  I mentioned Hitler because it sounds precisely like what Hitler wanted to do--which of course has nothing to do with my politics. 

[columbusdude82]

So this is how natural selection is supposed to work? 

No... but you would know that already if you read real science books instead of creationist pamphlets...

[columbusdude82]

Read/Discuss:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus, the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

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 the 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 the 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; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."  - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Yes, why indeed do the weaker members of homo sapiens get cared for? Why doesn't "natural selection" weed them out?

The answer is simple, and two-fold.

1. "Natural selection" does not operate on the level of the species, or the group, or the organism. It is not the "survival of the fittest species/group/organism." Natural selection can only operate on self-replicating entities, that have high copying fidelity, but a small (and unavoidable) probability of copying error. These are our genes. Natural selection operates on the level of the gene. It is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.

Of course, in Darwin's day, the gene was unknown. Mendel's work was not known then. It wasn't until the 1960's and 1970's, in fact, that we had a working knowledge of natural selection!

2. Natural selection has a simple, and powerful, explanation for human altruism. Over the millenia, our ancestors lived in small groups where everyone was closely related. Thus, every person you met in your life was highly likely to be a close relative. If a gene arose, say, "for harming one's siblings" (and such genes are plentiful in the animal kingdom), then it would constitute a selection pressure against itself, because it would be destroying copies of itself.

Moreover, it's easy to see how genes can favor altruism towards others, as a means of enhancing their own survival. (This brings us to the interplay of evolutionary theory, economic game theory, and experimental biology!)

Hence, evolution "programmed" us to be altruistic towards others.

Isn't it wonderful that we, today, can give Darwin a science tutorial on all the knowledge we have accumulated since his time?!

[Dos Equis]

No... but you would know that already if you read real science books instead of creationist pamphlets...

 

[columbusdude82]

..."Natural selection" does not operate on the level of the species, or the group, or the organism. It is not the "survival of the fittest species/group/organism." Natural selection can only operate on self-replicating entities, that have high copying fidelity, but a small (and unavoidable) probability of copying error. These are our genes. Natural selection operates on the level of the gene. It is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.

You're welcome

[Dos Equis]

You're welcome

 

[Nordic Superman]

Trying?  Pretty obvious that Darwin sounds like a genocidal racist in that passage.  I mentioned Hitler because it sounds precisely like what Hitler wanted to do--which of course has nothing to do with my politics. 

Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.

[Dos Equis]

Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.

I'm aware of Hitler's plan.  I spent four hours at the Holocaust Museum last summer.  Eye opening. 

[loco]

Isn't it wonderful that we, today, can give Darwin a science tutorial on all the knowledge we have accumulated since his time?!

Yeah, and while you are at it also give Darwin a history tutorial to let him know how he inspired Hitler to attempt to rule the world and to murder millions, reducing western Europe to ruins in the process.

Also tell Darwin how he inspired biologists to promote the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today.

I understand your explanation of natural selection above, but there is no denying the impact Darwin's words had on these people.

[columbusdude82]

Did Darwin say go out and kill? Did he ask for genocide? Did he proclaim the theory of aryan superiority?

He merely observed nature, saw that "weaker" members of other species regularly get the shaft, while we care for our own, and he asked why that is.

Blaming Darwin for how others misinterpreted (deliberately and with malicious intent) makes as much sense as blaming Jesus for the Crusades. Both were long dead by the time their ideas were hijacked and used for completely different purposes they never intended.

Of course, Hitler & co weren't waiting for Darwin to do their deeds, they just needed an excuse, just as the kings of Europe needed an excuse - any excuse - to wage war and conquer some land!

[MMC78]

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing
about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black
races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or
jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry
with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical
difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever
forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.
And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there
must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other
man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is
to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."
Abraham Lincoln
Source: September 18, 1858 - Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas
at Charleston, Illinois

[loco]

Did Darwin say go out and kill? Did he ask for genocide? Did he proclaim the theory of aryan superiority?

He merely observed nature, saw that "weaker" members of other species regularly get the shaft, while we care for our own, and he asked why that is.

Blaming Darwin for how others misinterpreted (deliberately and with malicious intent) makes as much sense as blaming Jesus for the Crusades. Both were long dead by the time their ideas were hijacked and used for completely different purposes they never intended.

Of course, Hitler & co weren't waiting for Darwin to do their deeds, they just needed an excuse, just as the kings of Europe needed an excuse - any excuse - to wage war and conquer some land!

Hey columbusdude82!  I understand the comparison that you are trying to draw here with the the Crusades, but there is a difference.  The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught.  By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.

[Deicide]

Hey columbusdude82!  I understand the comparison that you are trying to draw here with the the Crusades, but there is a difference.  The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught.  By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.

 Oh Really?

Luke 26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Sounds like the Crusaders were following his instructions to a T. 

[loco]

Hey, Trapezkerl!  We missed ya!  Welcome back!   

Oh Really?

Luke 26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Sounds like the Crusaders were following his instructions to a T. 

1. Jesus did not say that, but instead the king in a story that Jesus was telling is the one who says that.  Below is the complete passage.  Nice try, Trapezkerl!

2. Even if Jesus had really said that, it is not consistent with the Crusades.  The Crusades were not about Christians killing people because they did not want Jesus to be king.

3. I have never read nor heard anyone claim that Luke 19:12-27 inspired the Crusades or that the Crusaders used these Bible verses as an excuse to justify their actions.  If that is your claim, let's see some evidence.

The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught.  Jesus said we must love our enemies and bless those who curse us.  By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.

Luke 19:12-27 (New International Version)

12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

 14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

 15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

 16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

 17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

 18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

 19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

 20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

 22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

 24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

 25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

 26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

[columbusdude82]

loco, who does the "master" character in this parable refer to?

In Jesus' parables, such a character usually refers to himself, or his father (also himself).

[Parker]

Yes, why indeed do the weaker members of homo sapiens get cared for? Why doesn't "natural selection" weed them out?

The answer is simple, and two-fold.

1. "Natural selection" does not operate on the level of the species, or the group, or the organism. It is not the "survival of the fittest species/group/organism." Natural selection can only operate on self-replicating entities, that have high copying fidelity, but a small (and unavoidable) probability of copying error. These are our genes. Natural selection operates on the level of the gene. It is the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.

Of course, in Darwin's day, the gene was unknown. Mendel's work was not known then. It wasn't until the 1960's and 1970's, in fact, that we had a working knowledge of natural selection!

2. Natural selection has a simple, and powerful, explanation for human altruism. Over the millenia, our ancestors lived in small groups where everyone was closely related. Thus, every person you met in your life was highly likely to be a close relative. If a gene arose, say, "for harming one's siblings" (and such genes are plentiful in the animal kingdom), then it would constitute a selection pressure against itself, because it would be destroying copies of itself.

Moreover, it's easy to see how genes can favor altruism towards others, as a means of enhancing their own survival. (This brings us to the interplay of evolutionary theory, economic game theory, and experimental biology!)

Hence, evolution "programmed" us to be altruistic towards others.

Isn't it wonderful that we, today, can give Darwin a science tutorial on all the knowledge we have accumulated since his time?!

Excellent Post! I would wonder what Darwin would have said, had he  something like Lou Goering's Disease....He might have had a different tune. Many times the strong succumb to a disease as well. 

[loco]

loco, who does the "master" character in this parable refer to?

Most likely Herod Archelaus: http://www.livius.org/he-hg/herodians/herod_archelaus.htm

In Jesus' parables, such a character usually refers to himself, or his father (also himself).

No, not necessarily.  Jesus' parables and preaching often made use of events and characters familiar to his listeners as examples.

[Deedee]

Hey columbusdude82!  I understand the comparison that you are trying to draw here with the the Crusades, but there is a difference.  The Crusades are not consistent with anything that Jesus ever said or taught.  By contrast, Hitler's actions, the holocaust, Nazism and the eugenic movement are all consistent with Darwin’s Descent of Man.

Many people on this thread have already pointed out how silly it is, but I'll throw another pebble into the pond by asking if what you are suggesting is that we do away with free speech, ban public discourse, and impose strict political correctness laws in order to discourage people from behaving badly at some future date   

[Deedee]

Are you not aware that Hitler himself was a huge fan of Darwin and justified his brutality against the Jews with Darwinism. He thought he was doing mankind a favour creating his Aryan super race.

You're KIDDING?!!!    He did? Wow!  I thought he only quoted Martin Luther at length since he was such a huge fan, and held a real soft spot in his heart for the great reformer's virulent and all-consuming hatred for the Jews.

Loco, are you a Lutheran Protestant? I think you said once you were. If so, how do you reconcile your beliefs with the hatred-spewing founder of your faith?

[loco]

Many people on this thread have already pointed out how silly it is, but I'll throw another pebble into the pond by asking if what you are suggesting is that we do away with free speech, ban public discourse, and impose strict political correctness laws in order to discourage people from behaving badly at some future date   

No