Of Darwinism and Social Darwinism

[Castro]

The Conservative Movement, as its progenitors like to call it, is now mounting a full-throttled attack on Darwinism even as it has thoroughly embraced Darwin’s b@stard child, social Darwinism. On the face of it, these positions may appear inconsistent. What unites them is a profound disdain for science, logic, and fact.

 

In The Origin of the Species, published 150 years ago, Charles Darwin amassed evidence that mankind evolved through the ages from simpler forms of life through a process he called "natural selection." This insight became the foundation of modern biological science. But it also greatly disturbed those who believe the Bible’s account of creation to be literally true. In recent years, as America’s Conservative Movement has grown, some of these people have taken over local and state school boards with the result that, for example, Kansas’s new biology standards now single out evolution as a "controversial theory." Until a few weeks ago, teachers in Dover, Pennsylvania were required to tell their students they should explore "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution. (The good citizens of Dover just booted out the school board responsible for this, summoning a warning from Conservative Coalition broadcaster Pat Robertson that God would wreak disaster on them.)

 

Social Darwinism was developed some thirty years after Darwin’s famous book by a social thinker named Herbert Spencer. Extending Darwin into a realm Darwin never intended, Spencer and his followers saw society as a competitive struggle where only those with the strongest moral character should survive, or else the society would weaken. It was Spencer, not Darwin, who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest." Social Darwinism thereby offered a perfect moral justification for America’s Gilded Age, when robber barons controlled much of American industry, the gap between rich and poor turned into a chasm, urban slums festered, and politicians were bought off by the wealthy. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim that the fortune he accumulated through the giant Standard Oil Trust was "merely a survival of the fittest, ... the working out of a law of nature and a law of God."

 

The modern Conservative Movement has embraced social Darwinism with no less fervor than it has condemned Darwinism. Social Darwinism gives a moral justification for rejecting social insurance and supporting tax cuts for the rich. "In America," says Robert Bork, "‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people – entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. – who have gained their higher incomes through intelligence, imagination, and hard work." Any transfer of wealth from rich to poor thereby undermines the nation’s moral fiber. Allow the virtuous rich to keep more of their earnings and pay less in taxes, and they’ll be even more virtuous. Give the non-virtuous poor food stamps, Medicaid, and what’s left of welfare, and they’ll fall into deeper moral torpor.

 

There is, of course, an ideological inconsistency here. If mankind did not evolve according to Darwinist logic, but began instead with Adam and Eve, then it seems unlikely societies evolve according to the survival-of-the-fittest logic of social Darwinism. By the same token, if you believe one’s economic status is the consequence of an automatic process of natural selection, then, presumably, you’d believe that human beings represent the culmination of a similar process, over the ages. That the conservative mind endures such cognitive dissonance is stunning, but not nearly as remarkable as the repeated attempts of conservative mouthpieces such as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to convince readers the conservative movement is intellectually coherent.

 

The only consistency between the right’s attack on Darwinism and embrace of social Darwinism is the utter fatuousness of both. Darwinism is correct. Scientists who are legitimized by peer review and published research are unanimous in their view that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Social Darwinism, meanwhile, is hogwash. Social scientists have long understood that one’s economic status in society is not a function of one’s moral worth. It depends largely on the economic status of one’s parents, the models of success available while growing up, and educational opportunities along the way.

 

A democracy is imperiled when large numbers of citizens turn their backs on scientific fact. Half of Americans recently polled say they don’t believe in evolution. Almost as many say they believe income and wealth depend on moral worthiness. At a time when American children are slipping behind on international measures of educational attainment, especially in the sciences; when global competition is intensifying; and when the median incomes of Americans are stagnating and the ranks of the poor are increasing, these ideas, propagated by the so-called Conservative Movement, are moving us rapidly backwards.

 

by Robert B. Reich

 

Source

[Yeniceri]

Darwinism is correct.

Because "scientists" told us so? No wonder the conservative movement is gaining momentum.

 

In the Noble Qur'an it says:

 

"Wama khalaqtu aljinna walinsa illa liyaAAbudoon -- I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me." [51:56]

All the other crap humans say or write, scholarly or not, is just noise to me. We humans are fragile creatures. When life's good and we're healthy, we're quick to question everything, including existence itself. When we're ill, we're quick to revert back to a belief system, for there's nothing more concrete than Faith.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Yeniceri:

Because "scientists" told us so? No wonder the conservative movement is gaining momentum.

 

Not because scientists said so. But scientists with evidence/facts, results from tests and proper scientific theory tell us.

 

The same scientists that make medicine that treats YOU and billions of ppl each year, the same scientist who enabled us to live longer and dramitically slash infant mortality rate, the same scientists that invented electricity that not only lights up the world but powers just about every modern appliance, the same scientists who invented the telephone, radio, TV and the internet the made possible geographical distant parts of the world to communicate and live as if one big family... No one questioned the motive and partiality of scientists and the scientific method until the Creation vs Evolution debate came to forth. I blame this on creationists.

 

What reasons do we have of doubting what scientists say? If we disagree with a scientific finding, we can study the evidence ourselves. If we still disagree with what the facts say (which is what scientists almost always say), we're entitled to our disbelieve. But what we're not entitled to is malign science because it doesn't agree with our deeply held views.

 

We can disagree with science, that is our prerogative, but we shouldn'raise gratuitous doubts about the only discipline that excelled its self time and again in impartially, objectively and impassionately ascertaining truth and knowledge.

 

There are many topics one can pick a bone against science. The inability by science to this very day to come up with a thoery that reconciles Special relativity and Quantum theory is one. Questioning and doubting science on this very real failure is understandable. But there is only silence. All the critics of evolution theory who base their objections on lack of 'scientific evidence' don't say a word. This should show to all that most (certainly not all) critics of Evolution theory are motivated not by lack of evidence or poor explanation offered by Evolution theory but ignorance.

 

Ignorance is trully a bliss!

 

All the other crap humans say or write, scholarly or not, is just noise to me.

 

This is funny. Like what Dr. Salk wrote and invented that led to the polio vaccine that saves literally 10s of millions across the globe?

[Castro]

^ It's always a marvel to see you at work SB. You never tire, never give up. You'd explain this the last time as you did the first time. I'm in awe, saaxib.

 

As for the topic, I was hoping to focus more on the Social Darwinism aspect and how some conservatives, while utterly rejecting the biological Darwinism, would spew the gibberish about wealth and intelligence.

 

What say you SB on this? Are rich people inherently more intelligent and capable than us, regular folk? If they are, and following that argument to its logical conclusion, shouldn't biological natural selection be a no-brainer for the disciples of the "survival of the fittest"?

 

Anyone?

 

P.S. Brother Yeniceri, I'm not ignoring your post. I was hoping not to slide down the "is evolution a fact" slope. That has been discussed ad nauseam in this forum. I encourage you, still, to participate.

[SeeKer]

Originally posted by Castro:

Social scientists have long understood that one’s economic status in society is not a function of one’s moral worth. It depends largely on the economic status of one’s parents, the models of success available while growing up, and educational opportunities along the way.

Maybe also a business mind........but I need not say more

 

Castro I know you were trying to provide direction to tackle the topic but me thinks different. Darwinism has being used to back up a lot of things;Evolution, Societal norms/abnorms and my pet peeve racism . Aryans used Darwin's theory to wreck havoc on the world due to their belief that they were the superior race. Should it then come as a suprise that conservatives are using Darwin to further their agenda? Ah well we all bend and spin things to fit with our ideals...........who am I to judge indeed! :cool:

 

PS:- SeeKer being the wuss that she is acknowledges that her partaking in this arguement will eventually lead her to revert on her earlier stance showing support for capitalism as a lesser of two evils

[Castro]

^ Atheer, they're actually not using Darwinism to further their agenda but Social Darwinism, a brain child of Herbert Spencer. The latter claims his Social Darwinism shows why strongest (hence smartest, most capable and with strongest moral character) are also most likely to be richest. At the same time, they're rejecting Darwin's natural selection for going against Creationism. That's the paradox the author of this piece is alluding to. So what say you?

[Johnny B]

^^ So , it is the conservative movement´s no to Dawrin evolution but Yes to social dawrinism that bothers ya?

 

It dosen´t bother me , becouse the tendency is not confined to them.

 

All religions(ideologies) see science ONLY fit if it reaffirms and strengthens one of their wild claims, and see it Evil otherwise.

[Castro]

^ Now that's what I'm talking about. Yes, that's exactly what bothers me. How is it that biological natural selection (the one with ample proof) takes a back seat to Social Darwinism (one that has no more than anecdotal evidence)?

 

JB, I knew you'd come to the rescue. Now talk to me about this. What makes Social Darwinism work in favor of religions (ideologies) and not natural selection? This should be good.

[Yeniceri]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

the same scientist who enabled us to live longer

Really? I had no idea that a scientist could make me live longer. But do enlighten me - you seem to know so much, walaal.

 

So, can a scientist (you know, with his "facts" and "evidence") tell me EXACTLY the date and time that I'll die? Better yet, can a scientist (again, with his "facts" and "evidence") prolong my life beyond the pre-set time of death for me? And what happens to a person after he/she dies? We all know that person can no longer breathe. But other than that, what else can scientists with their magical "facts" and "evidence" tell us? There's no soul, there's no God?

 

The same scientists who can cure illnesses, huh. But HIV/AIDS? No cure. Cancer? No cure. Alzeimer's Disease? No cure. Hell...Are you talking about those "same scientists" who can't even find a cure for the common cold? :confused:

 

Don't put too much emphasis on the ability of man. He tries hard, but he always falls short. Just look at yourself. :;

 

Castro:

 

In your latter posts, you asked two interesting questions: Are rich people inherently more intelligent than the rest of us? And: What makes Social Darwinism work in favor of religions (ideologies) and not natural selection?

 

The first question requires some clarification. What kind of rich people - those who worked for the dollars or those who inherited the dollars from their family? I'll assume that you refer to the former. If that's the case, then we have to remember that its all relative. The rich people out here in Western nations are mostly smart Capitalists who know how to manipulate the system to work to their advantage. There are others who are smarter than those rich folks, but who've never had the determination to succeed as they did. That push, that determination, can make all the difference at times.

 

On the second question, "social Darwinism" works more for a religious ideology because that's one of its most basic tenets. In the article above, it says:

 

Social Darwinism was developed some thirty years after Darwin’s famous book by a social thinker named Herbert Spencer. Extending Darwin into a realm Darwin never intended, Spencer and his followers saw society as a competitive struggle where only those with the strongest

moral

character should survive, or else the society would weaken.

Then, one must ask: Where does the notion of morality originate? Who or what system tells humans that one thing is "moral" as opposed to its direct opposite (which becomes "immoral")? The notion of morality itself originates with religion, with the believing in a Higher Being, a universal order beyond the reach and imagination of man. Since the basis and origin of "social Darwinism" is to empower those with "moral" conviction and ultimately render them victorious (against the other, "immoral" humans), then that same ideology doesn't fall short of religion itself. What is a religion without morals? Capitalism, you say?

[SeeKer]

Castro sxb Darwinism/Social Darwinism..........same thing to me. One developed from the other. Anyway I will take a plunge in the rabbit hole.

 

Darwin's theory in a nutshell was in nature there is a pitiless fight for survival, an eternal conflict. The strong always overcome the weak, and this makes development possible. Though not verified there are many who believe that Darwin was influenced by economist Thomas Malthus's essay on the Principle of Population.

 

Darwin himself thought his theory on evolution could also be applied to ethics and social sciences. If you read the compilation of his letters Life and Letters of Charles Darwin you will come across a letter he wrote circa 1869 to Thiel I believe.

 

With the theory of evolution being accepted as fact, conflicts in the name of Fascism, Racism, Communism, Capitalism, imperialism, and the efforts of strong peoples to crush peoples they perceived as weaker were by now clothed in a scientific facade. Funny I thought I mentioned that we bend things to suit with our agenda

 

Now Herbert Spencer, the so called father of Social Darwinism, believed if someone is poor then that is his mistake; nobody must help this person to rise. If someone is rich, even if garned his wealth by immoral means, that is his competence/intelligence. For this reason, the rich man proves the survival of the fittest theory. In Sociology I never did see any mention of morality attached to his theory but I might be mistaken I would say that there is a spin off somewhere along the way that added morality to this theory though :rolleyes:

 

If you ask me I think the morality issue got added in the theory by E.A Ross (An American Social Darwinist). This quote says it all for me ""The shortest way to make this world a heaven is to let those so inclined hurry hell-ward at their own pace."

 

So dear Castro since this theory has being twisted by so many I don't see how conservatives cannot rationalize it to suit them i.e accepting the social aspect and disregarding the evolutionary aspect. :eek: :eek: Anyone with a brain would see that it for what it is;a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Castro]

^ Nice. So, what you're saying is, Social Darwinism, since it doesn't involve religion, is easily adopted (or twisted) while biological natural selection goes against Creation and therefore is rejected outright?

[SeeKer]

Originally posted by Castro:

^ Nice. So, what you're saying is, Social Darwinism, since it doesn't involve religion, is easily adopted (or twisted) while biological natural selection goes against Creation and therefore is rejected outright?

No what I am saying is there is no distinction in the theories for me. You either agree or don't agree with Darwin. The modifications to the theories should not cloud the fact that if you dissect the arguements only the fittest (morally as they say it these days) come out on top. You can't have the cake and eat it too.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Castro:

As for the topic, I was hoping to focus more on the Social Darwinism aspect and how some conservatives, while utterly rejecting the biological Darwinism, would spew the gibberish about wealth and intelligence.

 

My apology for digressing from the topic's objective...I know exactly what you were trying to get at with this post.

 

I don't believe in Social Darwinism for 2 reason. From it's name it deceives the layperson not well versed in Evolution theory into thinking that the theory provides support for it. It doesn't. There is nothing in Darwin's Theory of Evolution that gives any legitimacy to Social Darwinism. Right off the bat we have a movement based on a false premise.

 

A keystone pillar of Social Darwinism is the concept of 'survival of the fittest'. It is said to supposedly be another way of saying Darwin's Natural selection concept. Natural Selection, according to Darwin, means individuals with favourable genetic dispositions and best adoptable to local milieu have the upper hand in the ultimate struggle for survival. Therefore, it is not applicable to societies -- wealth, status, power, influence are NOT heritable traits. They're not biological... they don't guarantee survival!

 

So Social Darwinism by rephrasing and misintrepeting genuine scientific concept to pass itself as an ideology supported by science -- hence bolstered by evidence and facts -- has failed both humanity and science (by misrepresenting it). It is just another one of those failed, illegitimate, impractical ideologies.

 

Having said that, I agree with one aspect of social darwinism. Not all men are created equal. Some are better at things that others are poor at. Naturally this means some will be rich, others poor. Some will lead while others will follow. This inevitably leads to disparity in wealth and status. Then the question becomes what you do about?

 

This is where the rule of LAW and establishment of TRUE equality comes in. As long EVERY1 is treated as equal and is protected by law that applies to every1, I think you'll have more just (sorry Mr. Treadue ) and fairer society. You will always have the rich and the poor however as human history has shown enlightened conscience coupled with respect for the human rights of every human being has given us a better world in every sense then our forbears have experienced.

 

You gotta reward the ones that apply themselves -- it is only fair after all and give others a chance to get slice of the pie.

 

Lastly, Social Darwinists are doing good job of discrediting themselves by using the name of Darwin and at the same time challenging his theory of biological evolution.

[Cara.]

Castro,

 

As for the topic, I was hoping to focus more on the Social Darwinism aspect and how some conservatives, while utterly rejecting the biological Darwinism, would spew the gibberish about wealth and intelligence.

Isn't it obvious?

 

Religion says you were created in god's image, that you have an indulgent parent watching over you as part of his Divine Plan. And it doesn't hurt that it promises everlasting life.

 

Social Darwinism says you come from winners, that it's no accident that you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth. It both validates your existence and makes you feel less guilty. If it's merit that got your ancestors this far, obviously it's the lack of merit that keeps the unwashed masses downtrodden.

 

Biological Darwinism, on the other hand, places a question mark over the whole in-god's-image bit, while not making the descendants-of-winners bit all that exclusive. Evolutionarily, we all come from winners, and tomorrow, new evolutionary pressures might make someone else a winner.

 

Bugger that!

[Cara.]

At a time when American children are slipping behind on international measures of educational attainment, especially in the sciences; when global competition is intensifying

; and when the median incomes of Americans are stagnating and the ranks of the poor are increasing, these ideas, propagated by the so-called Conservative Movement, are moving us rapidly backwards.

I guess that's Social Darwinism at work then. Survival of the fittest, y'know?