I've been reading Better for all the World: The Secret History of Forced Sterilization and America's Quest for Racial Purity by Harry Bruinius and it reminds me of the textbook scandal in Texas. Such an outcry was made by those who didn't like the choices made by the powers that be as to what is important for our children to learn and what isn't - yet we make these choices all the time and many things that have tainted the past of nations is often ignored when it comes time to write the history books.
About a year ago, my husband and I watched the dvd, "Expelled." It was a documentary about the persecution endured by professors at American universities who believe in Intelligent Design. Many have lost their jobs or have been overlooked for jobs or promotions due to their beliefs. The dvd also made a case that tied Hitler and his intentional plan to exterminate Jews and other "undesirables" to evolution. Many followers of Darwin said that this was crazy and insisted that the makers of the dvd issue an apology for trying to connect Hitler with Darwin.
They should read Harry Bruinius's book. Francis Galton, founder of the Eugenics movement, was Charles Darwin's younger cousin. After reading Origin of the Species he soon developed his own ideas from his cousin's and wrote Hereditary Genius. His cousin praised his work and encouraged Galton in his pursuits of improving mankind. Galton's development of Eugenics theory grew in England but really took off in the United States. Illinois and California had forced sterilization laws for "imbeciles." Harry Laughlin, a schoolteacher from Missouri, helped couch eugenics in religious terms, and appealed to American's desire for a "better baby" or a "fitter family." The extent to which these ideas took over our culture is troubling, to say the least. When Germany was at the height of its sterilization program in 1936, the Nazi regime through Heidelberg University awarded Laughlin an honorary doctorate for his many contributions to "racial hygiene."
Americans were just as interested in creating a master "Nordic race" as the Nazis were in creating a German one - they just didn't go as far. The horrors of the Holocaust exposed the inhumane lies behind eugenics and all associated with it quickly went into hiding.
I'm about halfway through the book. In London in 1912, there was a five-day conference called the First International Congress of Eugenics. Winston Churchill was there, as was the mayor of London, the Chief Justice of England, and foreign ministers from Norway, Greece and France. Leading the conference was Major Leonard Darwin - Charles Darwin's son. The speaker from New Jersey, describing how sterilization is the best way to deal with those defective genes received the greatest attention.
At the end of the conference, Major Darwin addressed the attendees and stated the following:
The struggle might be long and the disappointments might be many. But we have seen how the long fight against ignorance ended with the triumphant acceptance of the principle of evolution in the 19th century (Applause and cheers). Eugenics is but the practical application of that principle, and might we not hope that the 20th century will in like manner be known in the future as the century when the eugenic ideal is accepted as part of the creed of civilization. It is with the object of insuring that the realization of this hope that the Congress was assembled.
Thank God for divine intervention.
(More to follow after reading more...)
About Me
- MomOnFire
- I am a woman who loves her husband and our five kids. My husband is a pastor of a nondenominational church and we are political independents.
5 comments:
Thanks for posting Deb. From a purely logical perspective, Darwinism should not lead to any ethical position. As some philosopher once said, "Is can't lead to ought." The problem is that most people can't help sneaking ethical conclusions in the back door. These people assume that if Darwinism is true and the mechanism that propels evolution is the survival of the fittest, then we ought to help that mechanism along to promote evolution. But that doesn't make any sense -- as soon as people decide to "help" the process along, it is no longer survival of the fittest, it is survival of those who have the favor of the ruling class.
Darwinism doesn't have to lead to such heartless conclusions. Alvin Plantinga has argued that if evolution is true, it provides compelling evidence for the existence of God. He argues that, apart from grounding intelligence in a transcendent being, Darwin's mechanism of survival of the fittest only produces creatures who have an advantage in survival, not creatures who develop any true beliefs.
The reality is that, for as long as there have been people, we have been searching for ideas and concepts that will allow us to numb our consciences when we neglect to love our neighbor as ourselves.
Looking forward to the rest of your thoughts after reading more.
For the record, I have not become a Darwinist. I just think Christians often add unnecessary stumbling blocks to the gospel by thinking we have to battle people on the issue of evolution first.
Ryan,
I don't understand how you can say that Darwinism should not lead to any ethical position. If Darwinism is true, then God is unnecessary. I've heard of the is/ought argument in light of homosexuality, but not in terms of Darwinism. A theory is not an "is." The perspective that I'm working from is that Darwinism is not a generic set of facts. It is a theory that logically leads to a rejection of a Creator God. Please explain how there can be no ethical conclusions drawn from Darwin. I'm not getting it, and would like to understand your perspective. Empirically, corelation does not mean causation but I'm talking about what I see as logical conclusions drawn from a theological/philosophical/scientific theory. Thanks for responding!
I agree that Darwin's theory of evolution has become a foundational pillar for atheism, and atheism has become a foundational pillar for moral relativism. My point though is that Darwinism does not have to lead to atheism, nor does atheism have to lead to ethical relativism. Many atheists would be offended if you say they cannot live morally (just as most Calvinists would be offended if you say they do not believe that God is loving).
Nothing about Darwinian evolution contradicts a belief in God any more than does micro-evolution, the theory that evolution does occur within a species but without producing a new species. Every creationist I know of believes in micro-evolution, and no one believes it contradicts God's existence.
What is certainly contradictory is a belief in Darwinian evolution and a surface reading of Genesis 1. No one disputes that. But there are a variety of interpretive strategies for reading Genesis 1 differently, going back at least to Augustine. Whether they do justice to the scriptures is another matter; I'm just saying that there are at least some ways of reading Genesis 1 on offer that are consistent with a belief in evolution.
When talking with an atheistic scientist type, I would prefer to be able to sidestep the evolution issue by saying there are at least some Christians who believe in evolution than to have to try to convince him that his entire discipline is founded on a lie.
Great conversation and interesting book. Thanks for posting again. Hope to see more from you. :)
Ok. That makes more sense. Joia took an Origins class last spring at Lawrence, and is taking a class on the Holocaust this fall. She is also reading books by Dinesh C'Souza and books on eugenics in order to make more sense of social Darwinism and the connection to Hitler, as well as D'Souza's philosophical support of Christianity while being an creation/evolutionist. I do believe strong arguments can be made that without God there is no morality - but that would be another post. Joia and I are both now reading War Against the Weak, which is an even better book than Better for all the World. It is really a great joy to have a daughter who is reading and wanting to discuss the same book as me. Blessings!
Post a Comment