Egnor Lies on Eugenics and Darwin, AGAIN

I mentioned before a run-in I had with a very egnorant MD. He issues a faux challenge, then threatened litigation when the challenge was met. My experience was similar to that of others who also directly addressed this silly little man's arguments from ignorance, and got nothing in return.

Anyway, now I can't say that the guy above in question (an egnorant person) is one and the same as this other guy here who I'm linking to (since it might cost me something) -- draw your own conclusions; but this latter guy (Egnor) isn't just ignorant of evolutionary biology (while flaunting pretentions to authority) -- he's completely f*@#ing dishonest:

Dr. West notes that the linkage between Darwinism and eugenics isn’t just philosophical and moral. It’s logical. Darwin proposed that Caucasian Europeans (like himself) were the pinnacle of human evolution, and that they emerged by a struggle for survival. Altruism degraded the process by which the human race could advance. Darwin famously wrote in the 5th chapter of Descent of Man that the smallpox vaccine had regrettably allowed weak human beings to survive, and "excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed."

Ironically, Darwinists saw eugenics (a term coined by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton) as the humane solution to the altruism-driven degeneration of the human race. Rather than exterminate the weak, they reasoned that it would be better to take control of evolution and prevent the weak.

I addressed this issue at some length a few months back. Lying creationists always cite *part* of what Darwin said, and always conveniently leave off the rest of his words. This dishonest hack has just followed suit. In Chapter 5, Darwin does indeed write about the problem with vaccinations and how they allow people without natural resistances to survive to reproduce and pass on this lack of resistance:

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 every one 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 any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

It sounds pretty evil, doesn't it? But at the same time, it sounds like he's not yet passing a conclusive ought in here, only saying that it seems that our actions to preserve the lineages of people with serious heredity flaws is "highly injurious to the race of man." So far, he hasn't prescribed any actions, only attempted to describe our humanistic efforts to preserve life. So...what does Darwin think of these actions? Well, the sentences directly after clarify it for us:

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 [emphasis added].

Hardly supportive of eugenics, and instead a statement of contest to it -- an appeal for us to maintain "the noblest part of our nature" and calling eugenics "an overwhelming present evil."

This is not to mention the fact that whether or not Darwin was a racist, or a sexist, or a murderer, has nothing to do with the facts of evolutionary history. But it's a useful way to keep those who are emotionally predisposed to reject evolution from even trying to answer the question of whether or not it's true. Make them afraid -- "Evolution = eugenics = evil!" -- and thus keep them ignorant.

I hate lying frauds and hacks.
________________
Technorati tags: Religion, Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism