No Subject

[Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>]

Dear visionaries.

Mark Rounds points out that many Christian groups have sought forgiveness
for their complicity in the racism of the 19th century. Have the
Darwinists done as much?

Part of the reason why they may not have is that they are better
logicians than that. Eugenics based on evolutionary assumptions was
enthusiastically supported by the usual suspects up until WWII. It was
abandoned at that time for PR reasons (for obvious reasons), and is now
making its not so surreptitious comeback. Survival of the fittest
presupposes another category -- the unfit, and the ramifications are
many. Check out Thornhill and Palmer, A Natural History of Rape
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).

All this is happening because the logic is unassailable. If evolution has
not stopped, what a priori scientific reason can be given, based
on natural selection, that would require all human races to grow into the
same new species, or to do so at the same rate? If evolution has stopped,
why should it have done so? You may not like it, and it may offend
liberal sensibilities, but I would like someone to tell me why a blind
process like natural selection cares about your liberal
sensibilities, or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

As for getting people all riled up, I have offered repeatedly to scram.
And I hereby do so again, and most cheerfully. But if I do, and when I
do, realize that the source of the agitation is an unwillingness to
answer the most basic questions about education. And those who want to
talk about education reform need to do more than rearrange the deck
chairs on the Titanic.