Darwin Legacy: Article on Times.com
Joseki
Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy
about more than a Decade ago I bought similar issues up on
Talk.Origins and eventually I was Censored and Banned. However it
seems that other have agreed with me on the issue. I mentioned the
issue again when the columbine incident occurred, More Harrasment on
the issue.
Well Her you go.... Enjoy
By EBEN HARRELL Eben Harrell – Tue Nov 24, 11:50 am ET
This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin,
and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the
Origin of Species, the landmark work in which Darwin laid forth his
theory of natural selection. While celebrations have emphasized the
British naturalist's giant role in the advancement of human progress,
British political journalist Dennis Sewell is not convinced. In a new
book, The Political Gene: How Darwin's Ideas Changed Politics, he
highlights how often - and how easily - Darwin's big idea has been
harnessed for sinister political ends. According to Sewell, evolution
is scientifically undeniable, but its contribution to human well-being
is unclear.
Should we reassess Darwin's legacy?
Bicentennial celebrations have portrayed Darwin as a kindly old
gentleman pottering around an English house and garden. What that
misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the
way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues. He asserted
that different races of mankind had traveled different distances along
the evolutionary path - white Caucasians were at the top of the racial
hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below. [Racism] was a
widespread prejudice in British society at the time, but he presented
racial hierarchy as a matter of science. He also held that the poor
were genetically second-rate - which inspired eugenics. (See a photo-
essay on Darwin.)
In your research, you found vestiges of this warped way of thinking in
an unexpectedly modern setting: school shootings.
Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at
his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that "stupid, weak-
minded people are reproducing ... faster than the intelligent, strong-
minded" ones. Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications
of Darwin's work and came to the conclusion that human life is like
every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The
Columbine killers made similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric
Harris, wore a "Natural Selection" shirt on the day of the massacre.
These are examples of how easily Darwin's writings can lead to very
disturbed ways of thinking.
You believe that Darwin should continue to be taught in schools. But
how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow
exceptional in the natural world? Wasn't his great breakthrough to
show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?
I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the
human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is
sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with
animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings,
and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain
rights.
Are you concerned that your ideas will be trumpeted by the creationist
movement?
Science is a big enough interest group. It can look after itself.
(Read "The Ever Evolving Theories of Darwin.")
We understand now that eugenics was an illegitimate science, so why
even worry about it today?
The thinking behind eugenics is still present. Many senior geneticists
point to a genetically engineered future. As the technology for this
falls into place, there has also been an explosion of the field of
evolutionary psychology that tries to describe every element of human
behavior as genetically determined. What we will begin to see is
scientists arguing for the use of genetics to breed out certain
behavioral traits from humanity.
Is it that you oppose artificial selection in principle, or that you
feel scientists are still too far away from a full understanding of
genetics to be making such decisions?
Who is going to make the value judgment of what is human enhancement
and what makes a human better? I don't feel comfortable with such
judgments being left to scientists.
All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in
the path of human progress?
What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of
humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to,
say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide
Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of
esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public
relations exercise.
See TIME's list of history's greatest adventures and explorations.
See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
View this article on Time.com
thomas p.
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300
>
>
> Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy
>
> about more than a Decade ago I bought similar issues up on
> Talk.Origins and eventually I was Censored and Banned.
Sensible move.
snip
Wexford
You'll note, there isn't a single quote here from Darwin, merely
allegations that he said or meant or alluded to something that can be
used to tarnish his image. Darwin was mostly self-taught. He wrote at
a time when men with much more elaborate educations and sterling
reputations were advancing the idea that the "races" were actually
evidence of speciation. Darwin certainly noted the fact that certain
groups of people, identifiable by race, lived in ignorance and in
primitive conditions. He also noted that there was a blurring of lines
between the races, that "race" itself was an indistinct concept, and
that there seemed to be no evident speciation. In any event, even if
Darwin had been a gross racist of the most obvious and obnoxious
variety, it doesn't matter. Species evolve. Period. It happens.
huge
It is the business of science classes to teach the facts of modern
evolutionary science as it is presently understood.
It is the business of ethics classes to teach what should be done
with the facts of evolutionary science.
It is the business of history of science classes to teach in detail
about Darwin and of his influence on history.
I think the article does not do enough to distinguish these,
but this lack is not necessarily the problem of Sewell, but
of Harrell's method of interviewing Sewell.
Some crossover between kinds of classes is inevitable, but
hiding facts from students is never going to be the right
thing to do.
--
huge: Not on my time you don't.
Davej
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300
>
> Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy
IRRELEVANT CRAP.
Wexford
> Joseki :
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300
>
>
> > about more than a Decade ago I bought similar issues up on Talk.Origins
> > and eventually I was Censored and Banned. However it seems that other
> > have agreed with me on the issue. I mentioned the issue again when the
> > columbine incident occurred, More Harrasment on the issue.
>
> > Well Her you go.... Enjoy
>
> > By EBEN HARRELL Eben Harrell – Tue Nov 24, 11:50 am ET
>
> > This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of CharlesDarwin,
> > and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the
> > theory of natural selection. While celebrations have emphasized the
> > British naturalist's giant role in the advancement of human progress,
> > British political journalist Dennis Sewell is not convinced. In a new
> > highlights how often - and how easily -Darwin'sbig idea has been
> > harnessed for sinister political ends. According to Sewell, evolution is
> > scientifically undeniable, but its contribution to human well-being is
> > unclear.
>
> > Should we reassessDarwin'slegacy?
> > gentleman pottering around an English house and garden. What that misses
> > is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in
> > different races of mankind had traveled different distances along the
> > evolutionary path - white Caucasians were at the top of the racial
> > hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below. [Racism] was a
> > widespread prejudice in British society at the time, but he presented
> > racial hierarchy as a matter of science. He also held that the poor were
> > genetically second-rate - which inspired eugenics. (See a photo- essay
> > onDarwin.)
>
> > In your research, you found vestiges of this warped way of thinking in
> > an unexpectedly modern setting: school shootings. Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a
> > Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in
> > November 2007, wrote on his blog that "stupid, weak- minded people are
> > reproducing ... faster than the intelligent, strong- minded" ones.
> > Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications ofDarwin'swork
> > and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of
> > animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The Columbine killers made
> > similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric Harris, wore a "Natural
> > Selection" shirt on the day of the massacre. These are examples of how
>
> > You believe thatDarwinshould continue to be taught in schools. But how
> > can we teachDarwinand also teach that humans are somehow exceptional
> > in the natural world? Wasn't his great breakthrough to show that humans,
> > like all animals, share a common origin? I think we have to decide what
> > status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's
> > religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In
> > teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what
> > is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated
> > differently and granted certain rights.
>
> > Are you concerned that your ideas will be trumpeted by the creationist
> > movement?
> > Science is a big enough interest group. It can look after itself. (Read
>
> > We understand now that eugenics was an illegitimate science, so why even
> > worry about it today?
> > The thinking behind eugenics is still present. Many senior geneticists
> > point to a genetically engineered future. As the technology for this
> > falls into place, there has also been an explosion of the field of
> > evolutionary psychology that tries to describe every element of human
> > behavior as genetically determined. What we will begin to see is
> > scientists arguing for the use of genetics to breed out certain
> > behavioral traits from humanity.
>
> > Is it that you oppose artificial selection in principle, or that you
> > feel scientists are still too far away from a full understanding of
> > genetics to be making such decisions? Who is going to make the value
> > judgment of what is human enhancement and what makes a human better? I
> > don't feel comfortable with such judgments being left to scientists.
>
> > path of human progress?
> > What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of
> > humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to,
> > say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web,
> > can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations
> > exercise.
>
> > See TIME's list of history's greatest adventures and explorations.
>
> > See TIME's Pictures of the Week.
>
> > View this article on Time.com
>
> It is the business of science classes to teach the facts of modern
> evolutionary science as it is presently understood.
>
> It is the business of ethics classes to teach what should be done
> with the facts of evolutionary science.
>
> It is the business of history of science classes to teach in detail
>
> I think the article does not do enough to distinguish these,
> but this lack is not necessarily the problem of Sewell, but
> of Harrell's method of interviewing Sewell.
>
> Some crossover between kinds of classes is inevitable, but
> hiding facts from students is never going to be the right
> thing to do.
>
> --
>
> - Show quoted text -
The article is propaganda. Sewell is a propagandist, nothing more.
I've never read a word by the man that wasn't tainted with his
political prejudices and his obsessive hatred of public education.
Bob LeChevalier
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300
>Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy
>
>about more than a Decade ago I bought similar issues up on
>Talk.Origins and eventually I was Censored and Banned. However it
>seems that other have agreed with me on the issue.
There are plenty of clueless idiots out there. That some agree with
you doesn't make you right.
>By EBEN HARRELL Eben Harrell � Tue Nov 24, 11:50 am ET
>
>This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin,
>and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the
>Origin of Species, the landmark work in which Darwin laid forth his
>theory of natural selection. While celebrations have emphasized the
>British naturalist's giant role in the advancement of human progress,
>British political journalist Dennis Sewell is not convinced.
A "political journalist" is not qualified to discuss science. He
might be qualified to discuss how the media deals with political
issues.
>In a new
>book, The Political Gene: How Darwin's Ideas Changed Politics, he
>highlights how often - and how easily - Darwin's big idea has been
>harnessed for sinister political ends.
That sinister politics can make use of good science doesn't make the
science any less good science.
>According to Sewell, evolution s scientifically undeniable,
What else matters?
>but its contribution to human well-being is unclear.
That could be said about most human endeavors. So what?
>These are examples of how easily Darwin's writings can lead to very
>disturbed ways of thinking.
Shall we look at all the warped thinking that the Bible has led to?
>You believe that Darwin should continue to be taught in schools. But
>how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow
>exceptional in the natural world?
We aren't "exceptional", except to humans.
>I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the
>human race.
No, "we" don't. Any such decision is purely an individual one, and
may be ad hoc and changing depending on the realm in which "status" is
being evaluated.
>Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way.
Whoopie for them.
>In teaching our common descent with
>animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings,
>and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain
>rights.
They don't "deserve" any such thing. We grant human rights because we
are human, and we cannot justly *claim* human rights without granting
them to others. We could also, under a different concept of justice,
grant such rights to other species, and aren't that far from doing so
with certain species.
>Is it that you oppose artificial selection in principle, or that you
>feel scientists are still too far away from a full understanding of
>genetics to be making such decisions?
>Who is going to make the value judgment of what is human enhancement
>and what makes a human better?
In most cases of reproduction, probably the parents. In cases of
self-enhancement, probably the person themselves.
>I don't feel comfortable with such judgments being left to scientists.
Who is leaving them to scientists.
>All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in
>the path of human progress?
>What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of
>humanity?
If the guy doesn't know, then he shouldn't be writing books about
evolution.
>It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to,
>say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide
>Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of
>esteem.
Probably because
1) he is an early example of successfully applying the scientific
method to the biological realm.
2) his work is ultimately the basis for all biological (and genetic)
work being done today.
2 alone means that it is more important than the discovery of
penicillin (which is no longer all the effective because germs have
EVOLVED as a result of its use - evolutionary theory is why we are
still capable of fighting disease with antibiotics in spite of such
resistance).
>I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public
>relations exercise.
"Imagination" is fine for some arenas of thought. But if someone is
limited only to what they can imagine, then they simply don't know
enough to pontificate.
lojbab
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
Cory Albrecht
> Joseki<jabri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300
>> Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy
>>
>> about more than a Decade ago I bought similar issues up on
>> Talk.Origins and eventually I was Censored and Banned. However it
>> seems that other have agreed with me on the issue.
>
> There are plenty of clueless idiots out there. That some agree with
> you doesn't make you right.
Not to mention that Jabbers was banned from t.o. for being a complete
and utter asshole. I doubt that I am the only t.o. (ir)regular in a.t.c.
(And if one has read enough of my posts to grok my style, one will know
how rarely I use words like "asshole", and thus by extension what it
says about Jabbers that I would use it to describe him.)