<Mendel wasn't a racist and didn't posit that human life was a purposeless accident.>
So? The eugenics folks certainly did... AND probably needed that piece of info for their ideas to make sense. Darwins "blending ideas" don't work like Mendel's direct causation!!
Further, this idea that Darwin knew anything about 'random mutation' and 'purposeless life' is poppycock.
ONe thing is clear: you have an agenda behind all your "information"... ie. if there is any truth in it, it's luck. You certainly aren't anywhere near Darwin's: "the noblest part of our nature", quite the opposite.
You aren't looking from truth, you're looking for YOUR idea of truth. When LaMarck (or whoever is credited for the eventual update of evolution) is shown correct, you'll hound him too. It's obvious. I'll let Greg point out which logical fallacies you're violating.
Eugenics
For more details on this topic, see Eugenics.
Darwin was interested by his half-cousin Francis Galton's argument, introduced in 1865, that statistical analysis of heredity showed that moral and mental human traits could be inherited, and principles of animal breeding could apply to humans. In The Descent of Man Darwin noted that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural selection, but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, "the noblest part of our nature", and factors such as education could be more important. When Galton suggested that publishing research could encourage intermarriage within a "caste" of "those who are naturally gifted", Darwin foresaw practical difficulties, and thought it "the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race", preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals.[155]
en.wikipedia.org
DAK |
