History shows how frequently commitment to an ideology overcomes the truth within the Scientific Method. For example, the “science” of eugenics was in vogue from the late 1800’s through the first half of the 20^th century. Based on evolutionary thinking that human races evolved differently and un-equally, believers in eugenics argued that we could improve mankind by controlling reproduction. The “favored races and peoples” needed to reproduce while the others should be prevented from reproduction. Measuring brain sizes and trying to correlate them to anatomical features was widely studied and practiced. The notion was so commonly accepted in the intellectual and political circles of the time that the “science” of eugenics was considered “settled” science.

There were a few voices “crying in the wilderness”, as with our ministry at Creation Moments in today’s creation vs evolution debate. G.K. Chesterton among others were trying to be heard in opposition to the bogus science of eugenics, but they were ridiculed or ignored. Influential people and institutions accepted eugenics, so that was that.

And thus, the eugenics bandwagon rolled on. Twenty-nine states passed laws allowing forced sterilization, Margaret Sanger founded the first “birth control” clinic, saying it was a burden to care for “the dead weight of human waste”, and George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind! Germany of course went further, eliminating “mental defectives” and other “undesirables” in a vast program of the holocaust that ultimately killed 10 million people, including 6 million Jews.

By the end of World War 2, due largely to the horrific consequences in Germany, and the insult it proved to be to humanity, public adherents to eugenics grew silent and universities removed textbooks and stopped teaching the pseudo-science.

Looking back at how researchers actually came to conclusions that defended eugenics in circular reasoning, we now correctly conclude that the researchers adjusted their outcomes to support the theory of those paying for the research. This kind of “science” is not really so unusual. It’s more common than you think – witness evolutionism, climate change alarmism, and the COVID-19 response of recent times.

What went on with eugenics over half a century ago, goes on in other fields and agendas. Commitment to an ideology skews scientific research and science education.

-  Mark Cadwallader, Board Chairman Creation Moments

Image: "The Relation of Eugenics to Other Sciences", based on a paper by Dr. Harry H. Laughlin, an introductory wall panel at the Third International Congress of Eugenics held at American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1932, PD, Wikimedia Commons.

Check out more from Creation Moments @creationmoments.com/