Posted on 01/24/2009 7:53:37 PM PST by Inappropriate Laughter
LONDON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - A new book on Charles Darwin says a passionate hatred of slavery was fundamental to his theory of evolution, which challenged the assumption held by many at the time that blacks and whites were separate species.
"Darwin's Sacred Cause" is among the first of dozens of works about the 19th century scientist to appear in 2009, the bicentenary of his birth and 150th anniversary of the publication of his groundbreaking "On the Origin of Species".
Its authors, Adrian Desmond and James Moore, also expect it to be one of the most controversial, because it explores what they call Darwin's humanitarianism and challenges the notion that his conclusions were the result of pure scientific pursuit. "There's got to be reasons why he came to common descent images of evolution when there was no precedent for that in the zoological science of his day," Desmond told Reuters. "It comes out of anti-slavery.
"No one doubts that the Galapagos Islands, mockingbirds, the giant ground sloths and the giant tortoises were absolutely fundamental to his views and what he was interested in.
"But you have to look at some sort of marshalling principle. Every ship carried more than one naturalist generally in those days -- why did none of them come to this kind of common descent view and yet most of them had seen exactly the same evidence?"
Moore said the book did not seek to reduce the argument to "I'm against slavery therefore I'm an evolutionist", adding:
"This is not a reductionist argument. We are making the case that it was necessary for Darwin to believe in 'brotherhood science' in order to see common descent. We can't figure out where else he got it from."
(Excerpt) Read more at uk.reuters.com ...
The default position that most people believed at the time was that the Bible's account was true.
Darwin's position left open the possibility that humans are different species or sub-species, with some more primitive than others. According to the Bible, we're all one family.
Sounds to me like revisionist history. Slavery has been nearly universal, in every time and place, with the exception of Europe under Christianity, where it gradually faded away, only to be revived when Western explorers encountered the Arab and African slavers. Even then, slavery was not permitted in Europe but was used abroad.
Early modern slavery differed from the ancient world precisely because it was racist. Blacks became viewed as an inferior race. That happened before Darwin, but it also happened after Darwin. Darwinist theory contributed to the “scientific” view that there was such a thing as race, which was not in fact common in the ancient world.
Darwinists insist that the scientific theory is different from Social Darwinism, yet it was Darwin’s friends, admirers, and supporters who invented social Darwinism and the idea of lesser races, which was common in the nineteenth century.
It was, of course, Christians who were chiefly responsible for doing away with slavery—the Pope and the bishops in Latin America, Evangelical Christians in England and America. Darwinists had nothing to do with it. They were the ones who talked about master races and inferior races.
Precisely--with Nazism being the most obvious practical example of this interpretation. Besides, many (if not most) of the abolitionist were Christians who were anti-slavery because of their Christian principles. So if Darwin wanted to be anti-slavery, there was absolutely no need for him to make up some false creation myth about how we are descendants of apes.
Very simply, Christianity cannot be used as a philosophical basis for racism; Darwinism can.
This is interesting. Darwinism, whether it was his intention or not, actually argues for the inequality of human races. If Darwinism is assumed to be correct for the sake of argument, and one then disregards the Christian concept of all peoples being ‘made in His image’, then logically there would have to be striking differences as various peoples evolved separately and moved about the planet - adapting to differing climates, acquiring different needed skills, etc.
Darwinism was beloved by all the architects of history’s bloodiest century - Marx, Hitler, Sanger and the like. The followers of Darwin invariably assigned sub-human ‘otherness’ to different races and cultures. The Nazis, obviously. The Soviets, Chinese and Korean communists were notoriously racist in their treatment of those they ruled.
I know nothing of these authors, and their premise may well be true as it applies to Darwin’s personal beliefs, but the legacy of Darwin is hardly egalitarian.
Just has Merchantilism has become Capitalism
Slavery has become Socialism in today’s world
The inordinate affection that both Evolutionists and Nazis have had for such things as skull measurements via calipers, and measurements of “cranial capacity” have been used to support racist views via science.
The Bible, on the other hand, does not make and has never made any claims other than common descent.
.
Border Collies and Pitbulls are both of the same species
Garden Snakes and Coral Snakes are both of the same species
Rush Limbaugh and Chi-Town Thug O’Bummer are both of the same species
Now it begins.....
- The Survival Of The Fittest
RUBBISH
Darwin did more to create racism than any other theory possible. If you believe in Macro or Micro evolution, simple deduction will prove that everyone is either a little more or a little less advanced than the man standing next to you. It is basic deduction. We can not all evolve at the same rate.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5787947
The people that wrote this book are full of crabby patties...
Survival of the fittest, which is a hallmark of the evolutionary theory, is absolutely racist. Whichever race is the strongest is destined to win. It is Evolution at its base level.
One of the things that separates us from the animals... the idea that we can lift up the weakest among us. This is absolutely against our nature. When you see the news you may believe we only eat our young but in reality the world is full of those who would do anything to help others survive.
And right... the Bible said we were all descended from the same place long before Darwin came along.
Bingo!!!! Anything to increase book sales!!
True. However, it is also only fair to point out that the only people, the Confederacy, to ever fight a great war in defense of the principles of slavery and racism claimed to base their philosophy on Christianity.
The Bible can be quoted successfully in defense of slavery. In fact, slavery was taken for granted as a fact of life by all Bible authors. But the Bible cannot be used to support racism or race-based slavery.
The Darwinist are sure going to have to change the Ape descent to man, art work, if they are going to fully cleanse old Darwin’s savage works.
What you want to say is "Christian Europe". That will also carefully excise "Moslem Europe" from the picture ~ they had slaves! Actually, even Christian princes in the Balkans had slaves called "Gypsies".
Volga River Vikings kept their women as slaves right down to the end of their rule.
I recently had a poster try to convince me that slavery in America was ended by Charles Darwin and a small band of determined Evolutionists. Maybe he was inspired by a flush of bicentenary fever?
Hate to burst this author’s revisionist bubble, but the idea that all humans have a common ancestor predates Darwin by thousands of years. Ever heard of Adam and Eve? Noah?
Bingo!
Does anyone have evidence of Darwin belonging to any abolitionist society? Think not.
Had Darwin's theory been published and gained traction earlier it would have been siezed upon by the pro-slavery segment as justification for slavery. As Chesterton said, if we weren't created equally, we certainly didn't evolve equally, and one could add that the evolution was not equal not only as individuals but also not as as races either. And why should not an inferior race have been used pick cotton just as less evolved animals like draft horses were used to pull carts? And why not breed people as animals are bred—opps, that was eugenics.
It isn't an argument that Darwinism is scientifically incorrect because it has a poor effect on society (albeit strong arguments against Darwinism can be made on scientific grounds), but the contention that Darwinism opposed slavery is revisionism of the highest order.
Sort of like claiming that Al Capone was really a disciple of Carrie Nation.
If anything it is exactly and precisely the opposite. If fellow humans are made in the image of God, than mistreatment and abuse of them, or treating them as your own property instead of belonging to God (as it were), is wrong. It is easy to see how biblical theism mitigates against slavery, and easy to see from the historical record that this was indeed the case.
By contrast, Darwinism taught that 'might makes right.' That some people are more primitive, more like animals, than others. Thus, why not enslave them? Why not do whatever you can to crush your competition and use them for your own ends. Slavery fits perfectly with pure Darwinism.
It seems to me the Darwinists are desperate. They are trying to capitalize on the 200th anniversary, but the evidence is so heavily against them now that they can only make these kinds of lame and ridiculous arguments. The more they call attention to the subject the worse it is going to get for them. :-)
“The Bible, on the other hand, does not make and has never made any claims other than common descent.”
The common descent Bible theory falls short of Darwin’s theory. Evidence supporting Darwin’s descent with modification theory is visible in museums everywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.