Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. 30 Oct '17 18:40
    LONDON, November 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A leading international anti-religion crusader and supporter of Darwinian theory, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad.”

    Since the end of the second world war, the name of eugenics, the social philosophy that the human species or particular races ought to be improved by selective breeding or other forms of genetic manipulation, is one that conjures instant images of the Nazi death camps and “racial hygiene” programs.

    In a letter to the editor of Scotland’s Sunday Herald, Dawkins argues that the time has come to lay this spectre to rest. Dawkins writes that though no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, “if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?”

    Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, but is best known as one of the world’s most outspoken current opponents of religious belief, giving lectures and interviews and writing articles in which “fundamentalist” Christianity is among his favourite targets.

    “I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.

    Dawkins’ campaign against religion has led him to publish a book, “The God Delusion”, in September this year and he is one of the instigators of the notion, popular with journalists, that the Catholic Church’s opposition to artificial contraception will result in mass starvation.
  2. 30 Oct '17 19:10
    Dawkins made significant contributions to our understanding of evolution.

    All of the rest he says is best ignored as he's just a bit of a tosser.
  3. 30 Oct '17 19:26 / 7 edits
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad.”
    Judging purely from some comments from people that researched this claim, this is a lie.

    http://proexistence.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/dawkins-nazi-eugenics-not-so-bad.html

    "...What is quoted is actually an extract from a book, where the subject being discussed is moral problems. The title "eugenics may not be bad" is chosen by a mischevious editor, not by Dawkins. ..."

    In either case, there is nothing evil about accepting the proven scientific fact of evolution as a fact. In no way does it in the minds of the rational naturally lead to belief in eugenics in particular let alone atrocities. Religion, on the other hand, can (but not necessarily) do. WW2 proved this as the vast majority (if not all) of the leading Nazis including Hitler himself were Christian and believed that God guided evolution to create the master race (themselves, of course) and that the Jews are inferior because, according to the Bible, the Jews betrayed Christ -that latter belief is not only purely religious but has nothing to do with the real evolution theory. That does not mean that being Christian equates with being morally bad but it does mean that being Christian does not equate with being morally good and atheists are NOT to blame for the atrocities committed by theists. I have no doubt that, if there was no evolution theory, the Nazis would have simply come up with alternative religious reasons to commit many atrocities although it was what the Bible said, not what evolution theory said, that they used as an excuse to murder Jews.
  4. 30 Oct '17 20:53
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Dawkins made significant contributions to our understanding of evolution.

    All of the rest he says is best ignored as he's just a bit of a tosser.
    Wait......wut?

    But....but......but.....he is a scientist.

    You are not anti-science are ya?
  5. 30 Oct '17 20:57 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @humy
    Judging purely from some comments from people that researched this claim, this is a lie.

    http://proexistence.blogspot.co.uk/2006/11/dawkins-nazi-eugenics-not-so-bad.html

    "...What is quoted is actually an extract from a book, where the subject being discussed is moral problems. The title "eugenics may not be bad" is chosen by a mischevious editor, not by ...[text shortened]... what the Bible said, not what evolution theory said, that they used as an excuse to murder Jews.
    Yes, Hitler killed all those Jews for Jesus.

    Thanks for that.

    I reckon this is why the Catholic church did not publically condemn the Holocaust, eh? I guess they feel the same about abortion, sure, it's another Holocaust, but hey, we were silent about the first one, so..........

    Yes, the Pope and Hitler would have ruled the world had they had their way, all to convert us to Christianity.

    So you agree with Dawkins? Should we breed the human race for strength, much like you would a race horse?
  6. 30 Oct '17 21:05
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Wait......wut?

    But....but......but.....he is a scientist.

    You are not anti-science are ya?
    Religious fundamentalists often have trouble understanding that science isn't a cult. Just because I am a scientist doesn't mean I agree with every single other scientist all the time.

    I've read The Selfish Gene, which is a very interesting work about evolution and introduces the concept of memetics - I recommend it highly. I've also read The God Delusion, which is utter rubbish and just some moaning about religion any 12-year old could write.
  7. 30 Oct '17 21:28 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Religious fundamentalists often have trouble understanding that science isn't a cult. Just because I am a scientist doesn't mean I agree with every single other scientist all the time.

    I've read The Selfish Gene, which is a very interesting work about evolution and introduces the concept of memetics - I recommend it highly. I've also read ...[text shortened]... on, which is utter rubbish and just some moaning about religion any 12-year old could write.
    So you say that humans cannot breed humans for strength like you do a race horse?

    Why?

    If we can do this for animals and plants, why not people? Is it not simply genetics?

    Who in their right mind does not want a master race?
  8. 30 Oct '17 21:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey

    So you agree with Dawkins?
    on what? I happen to know I agree with some of his opinions and disagree with some of his opinions.
    Should we breed the human race for strength, much like you would a race horse?

    No. And Dawkins never said this nor does the theory of evolution say this.
  9. 30 Oct '17 21:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    So you say that humans cannot breed humans for strength like you do a race horse?
    he never said this and nobody here says/implies/believes we should do this. What are you on?
  10. 30 Oct '17 21:45 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by @humy
    he never said this and nobody here says/implies/believes we should do this. What are you on?
    Here is what he said.

    “I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday."

    Perhaps "strength" was the wrong word, but then, he does not specify on all the ways to improve our race, just faster runners and higher jumpers and better musicians I reckon.
  11. 30 Oct '17 21:56
    Seems to me that although we do not need to kill others, steps should be taken to improve mankind. Why not?
  12. 30 Oct '17 21:59 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Seems to me that although we do not need to kill others, steps should be taken to improve mankind. Why not?
    So you are in?

    We should then breed to improve society as Hitler and Dawkins envisioned?

    What is your vision?

    As for the naysayers, it's just science. Don't be anti-science.
  13. 30 Oct '17 22:08
    Originally posted by @whodey
    So you are in?

    We should then breed to improve society as Hitler and Dawkins envisioned?

    What is your vision?

    As for the naysayers, it's just science. Don't be anti-science.
    No, not like Hitler. He envisioned wiping out the inferiors. I say let the inferior breed, but also have the super race group. Perhaps test tube kids that then would not really have parents. Make a super group of people who truly belong to the state. These super people will help guide us and make things better for the rest of us.
  14. 30 Oct '17 23:09
    Originally posted by @eladar
    No, not like Hitler. He envisioned wiping out the inferiors. I say let the inferior breed, but also have the super race group. Perhaps test tube kids that then would not really have parents. Make a super group of people who truly belong to the state. These super people will help guide us and make things better for the rest of us.
    I thought we had the master race already making decisions for us.

    These are the same people that will have greater control over us to create a true master race.

    Exiting, isn't it?
  15. 30 Oct '17 23:24
    Originally posted by @whodey
    I thought we had the master race already making decisions for us.

    These are the same people that will have greater control over us to create a true master race.

    Exiting, isn't it?
    What we have today are just the super rich. What they need are prettier and smarter people to tell what to do.