Note: Eugenics is on the come back and is being promoted by several Darwinists. One notable Darwinist is Richard Dawkins.
IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.
Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But 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? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
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. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?
I am not at all condoning forced sterilizations, I'm just saying that the genetics of intelligence have been proven, you ignorant -CENSORED-
Eugenics is a bona fide science, and for your information, it is on the rise again.
So all through history, since the introduction of evolution, Eugenics movement can be connected to Darwin. And also several people, including Hitler, who have comitted crimes against human kind. Even of their own race. All for an idea that made them think they were more superior than everyone else. This is why notable Darwinist like Dawkins will often refer to people who disagree with him as a lower species of human. Like where he does with this comment: Dawkins calls religion a “virus” and faith-based education “child abuse”.
Dawkin's goal in doing this, along with his peers, is to set himself up as a superior intelligent being. Barring all the "virus" based humans around the world. His thinking basically is: My way or no way. And even though Dawkin's and his peers say they are against fear type doctrines. They do instill fear against those whom disagree with them by categorizing everyone else as not totally human (run or they will get you). He is out spoken in his hate for "all" Christians. And he wants to have everyone fear them, and if you join his group they will protect you from this supposed threat. His message that only Christians preach a fear doctrine, when his group does the same, makes him a hypocrite.
