Happy Birthday Darwin!

The text you cite does not refute my assertion. I am aware that Social Darwinism is based on a logical fallacy.

________________________________

You originally wrote:
"Social Darwinism sprang directly from Darwin's theory, and he contributed ideas to the concept, though he was not among its leading proponents."

I cannot fathom what part of, "In reality, the two (i.e., Darwin's theory of biological evolution by natural selection on the one hand and Spencer's eugenics theories now known as social Darwinism on the other) have very little in common, aside from their name and a few basic concepts, which Social Darwinists misapplied" doesn't refute this assertion. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Social Darwinism is an application of Darwin's theory, and he engaged the idea of Social Darwinism in his time, though he found it wanting. While Darwin cannot be blamed for the misapplication of his theory, neither did he strongly refute this particular strain of thought.

Darwin held that Social Darwinism was flawed insofar as citizens, of their own free will, would reject a mandate to improve themselves via genetic engineering. He saw no moral imperative for people to emulate nature (hence the logical fallacy), but he did not reject the moral construct ungirding the concept. In other words, he argued that social darwinism was improbable, not undesirable.

Bridging the gap at the turn of the century were progressives who saw governmental regulation as a solution to the conundrum. They saw a world in which United States law would improve in accordance with the improvement of the population. The work of Darwin was fundamental to building this argument, but he had passed before he could see the fruits of these particular labors.

________________________________

"Um, using the term "genetic engineering" in connection with Darwin is an anachronism. "

No. It would be an anachronism if what they were debating did not involve genetic engineering. Ignorance does not render a term anachronistic.

"And you still haven't demonstrated that there's any significant connection between Darwin's theory of biological evolution and social theories in vogue during the later period."

Darwin and Spencer were contemporaries.

"You want us to believe that social Darwinism inevitably flows from from evolution by natural selection."

If I wanted you to believe that, I would have argued it.

"You want to make Darwin's theory guilty by association. "

Guilty of what?

________________________________

It is obvious, Don, that Kevin has in no way refuted your argument. His argument is lacking in responsiveness to your original point and coherency. Thanks for keeping them honest, Don.

What a completely uncalled for sarcastic response. My post was respectful to you. Why couldn't you return the favor?

To play by your rules then...Thank God He revealed the evolutionary processes He built into His creation to Darwin. Those revelations have led to advances in medicine and food production that save lives.

Kevin, do you have any source for these assertions about Darwin's views on Social Darwinism?

In his Descent of Man, Darwin DID reject the "moral concept undergirding the concept" , as you put it:

"Thus the weak members of civilized 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 any one 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 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, 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."

Notice that "without deterioration of the noblest part or our nature" and "an overwhelming present evil". That's a pretty strong moral rejection of Social Darwinism.

Most people are having a hard time believing in Darwin's theories and ideas..
I think the history of man cannot be told by anybody except time.

"Hence, I'm not prepared to concede that Darwin was a hard-core atheist. "

I also think Darwin would be puzzled over the hard core athiests' co-opting of his theory to support their religious dogma.

Because of the ongoing controversy over Darwin and his ideas, many of us--myself included--actually know little about him and the observations and events that shaped his thinking. It is good to have this opportunity to learn more about him.

Fascinating that both he and Lincoln were born on the same day!

D

Kevin: I never mentioned "poor" in my post, musch less equate them to "weaker".

Darwin doesn't say it isn't practicable. He says it "COULD NOT be done for moral reasons. H ere, read this again: "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. "

"employed flawed scientific reasoning to advance their cause. "

If that is the case (and you say it is), then the conclusion is that Darwinism (and Darwin) is not responsible for Social Darwiniam. After all, no one can be resonsible if someone employes FLAWED reasoning from a theory. Thank you for destroying your own tehisis so well.

Social Darwinists do not argue that we should neglect the weak. Only that we should discourage their propogation. In fact, many (including Margaret Sanger) argued that the government should make a special effort to help the weak, lest they reproduce unawares.

________________________________

Kevin: "But again, Darwin is silent on the question of selective breeding. "

LOL! No, he's NOT silent. He says it violates the "noblest part of our nature" and is an "evil". How can you interpret that as being silent?

"Darwin does not argue that it ought not,"

He does argue "ought not". The reasons he gives for "will not" are "ought nots":
in violation of our noblest nature and making an evil. Those are OUGHTS.

Darwin does spend the rest of the paragraph after the first sentence applying a moral argument against selective breeding in humans! DUH! How can you keep missing that?

""Perhaps so, but that is immaterial to the question of whether we can thank Darwin for social Darwinism."

No, it's very relevant. What you have to do is look at ALL Darwin's work to determine if your claim is valid. Since the rest of Darwin's work is at SCIENTIFIC dissonance with that statement about selective breeding, then Darwin is undermining Social Darwinism, not supporting it.

Darwin's writings indicate too, that he was very against what came to be called "Social Darwinism", feeling it bad biology (which it is), and very against anything like eugenics, feeling it was immoral.

You are conflating neglect of the poor with selective breeding in a way Darwin does not.

Again, here is what he says.

1) Selective breeding would be beneficial to humanity.

2) Selective breeding isn't praticable.

3) It is wrong to neglect the poor.

"Since the rest of Darwin's work is at SCIENTIFIC dissonance with that
statement about selective breeding, then Darwin is undermining Social
Darwinism, not supporting it."

Eugenicists employed flawed scientific reasoning to advance their cause. That doesn't mean that their theories weren't employed to negative ends.

________________________________

Typical of this blog to highlight Darwin and not Lincoln. At least at my school, named after Abe, we had an assembly. Even though our majority politically-correct staff don't think much of Lincoln over all. Not liberal enough.

But, for Darwin, we can thank him that we have the term social Darwinism that fits our dog-eat-dog society. There's still that little issue about how matter was somehow created from nothing, like a piece of clay without a potter...

Thanks, Don,
In my significantly busier state this semester, I need to temper my participation on this site. So I'm glad you can capably take the reigns on the scientific issues that occasionally appear here.
I'll add a bit about the misconception of "Social Darwinism". As you rightly point out, it wasn't Darwin's idea. It isn't about "survival of the fittest", but survival of the best-adapted, whether that means short beak or long beaks, dark colored wings or light colored wings. The concept, in fact, has very little to do with strength, or other values we tend to think mark a superior being.
So, no, ando, we can't thank Darwin for the concept of social Darwinism. We can thank misguided nuts like Hitler for that, but that was not his idea, nor would any scientist worth his or her salt ever suggest it is a valid application of his theories.
What we can thank Darwin for, however, are the major advances we have made in medicine and food production. If you had a flu shot this year, for example, you can thank Darwin for making that possible.

Don, I did not see your post before I posted my response.

"Darwin and Darwin's theory have nothing to do with so-called "social Darwinism." "

This isn't true. Social Darwinism sprang directly from Darwin's theory, and he contributed ideas to the concept, though he was not among its leading proponents.

It became popular among Marxists and Communists, and gave birth to the Eugenics movement that eventually gave us Planned Parenthood.

"Social Darwinism sprang directly from Darwin's theory, and he contributed ideas to the concept, though he was not among its leading proponents."

Wrong.

"Many negative reactions to Darwinism come from the confusion of Darwinism as a scientific theory with Social Darwinism as an ethical theory. In reality, the two have very little in common, aside from their name and a few basic concepts, which Social Darwinists misapplied. Unfortunately, much of today's opposition to the application of Darwinian thinking to human behavior comes from a fear of Social Darwinism and its implications for many of today's moral codes. However, Social Darwinism in its basic (and extremist) forms are based on a logical fallacy, and do not really follow from Darwinian thinking in any way." Emphasis mine
--From http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml

Social Darwinism was the brainchild of one Herbert Spencer, who took Darwin's theory of the origin of species and applied (rather misapplied) portions of it to his own social and moral theory. Spencer actually based it on his own theory of evolution, but one that lacked Darwin's explanation for evolution (natural selection) and thus attracted little attention.

Spencer's ideas preceded Darwin's publishing of Origins. The two theories have little in common other than shared (and by social Darwinists misapplied) terminology.

"What we can thank Darwin for, however, are the major advances we have made in medicine and food production. If you had a flu shot this year, for example, you can thank Darwin for making that possible."

Gosh, and here I thought it had something to do with God and His providence. Let us all now take a minute of silent reverie toward Charles....

Darn it, Don! Quit arguing using facts. I mean, really Don it is so much more fun to make it up as you're going along!

On a more serious note, it seems that pure laissez-faire capitalism with its emphasis on efficiency (keeping the buses [not necessarily the the trains] running on time) over equity and justice bears a close resemblance to Social Darwinism.

Buckeye Don,

Thanks for your post and its reference to a source to set the record straight on the relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. If one simply reads some of the posts on this blog and accepts their premises as the gospel, you could definitely be led down the wrong path.

ando my blogging friend . Noticed you got uptight here . Yes I understood your point , you would think Lincoln would get some time here . Of course Evolution is supported by sojourners . The comments that followed yours I believe are worth reading again . The people who see those of us who believe in the possibility of a Creation where God took a short put us in a
stereotype of liars, un educated , and minds not worthy of respect or denying that the scientific method is being used .

Just basic common sense that if you found it wrong to link social darwinism and what the Nazis did with it ,to people who accept evolution , it would be just as wrong to negatively portray the majority of Christians who believe their is more of a chance of Angels then Evolution.

.

"The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our land" Arthur, son of Uther Pendragon