This past week, I read something "interesting":

I read that Darwin *personally* believed that it was desirable
for society to *not* apply itself to helping
the "less fit", because this would weaken the species.  He
apparently understood that this would entail a lot of persons
suffering a lot.

I believe there is a profound blindness in this, since
I had earlier read that the only reason Darwin was able to function
in life (and, e.g., to discover and publish the theory of evolution...) was
because of his inherited wealth and the ministrations of a
devoted wife.

In other words, on his own beliefs, Darwin should have
suffered much and died young *instead* of being the founder of
the various forms of "Darwinism".

--Unless, of course, one believes that the fittest
always survive *by definition*, in which case a fragile creature like Darwin
was clearly evolutionarily superior to a person with
Charles Atlas's body and Einstein's brain but who had
the bad luck to be born anywhere that social
conditions would have precluded him from "flowering".

"Yours in discourse...."

+\brad mccormick

--
  Let your light so shine before men,
              that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)

  Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)

<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [log in to unmask]
  914.238.0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua NY 10514-3403 USA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
  Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/