Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy of Death, Disease, Depravit Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Margaret Sanger's Eugenic Legacy of Death, Disease, Depravit

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: Brumar89

9/9/2017 1:45:53 PM

Read Replies (1) of 1308

Eugenics: How consensus science can be dead wrong

September 3, 2017

A friend writes to urge us to listen to John West’s podcast on eugenics:

John’s account is thorough and accurate onthe application of Darwinian principles to the “improvement of humankind.” Most Darwinists today would like to forget this, but as John shows, eugenics wasn’t an aberration of those principles but a natural and logical outgrowth of ideas presented in Darwin’s Descent of Man. It was mainstream science. It is not hard to find leading faculty in the early 20th century praising eugenics as “cutting edge” medical science. This dark chapter must not be forgotten. As John has frequently said, “ideas have consequences.”

From David Klinghoffer:

Eugenics was the scientific “consensus,” the mainstream science, of its day. It was wreathed in academic prestige, with proponents at the best research universities. Its chief opponents were clergy and other religious activists, then as now dismissed by sophisticated opinion as naïve or worse. Only the chastening lesson of the Holocaust, itself an exercise in eugenics-inspired mass murder, finally discredited the idea in the eyes of most respectable people.

Dr. West draws several conclusions. One is that the scientific “consensus” can be dead wrong, and dangerously so. Another is that open debate, rather than passively accepting whatever is claimed in the name of science, is a crucial defense for truth and against injustice. A third is the necessity of resisting the lure of scientism, the mistaken belief that scientists at any given moment know best in all matters.

..............

uncommondescent.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next