Posted on 03/15/2009 6:23:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Some Darwinists will say anything to try to draw attention away from the obvious. The point of my “Scientific Certitude” post was to show that evolutionary theory has been used to support racist views. Darwin was a firmly committed racist, and he was not shy about expressing his racist views:
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” Charles R. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed. (1871; reprint, London: John Murray, 1922), 241-42.
While Darwin was still alive his contemporaries took his racism/evolution link and ran with it. For example, Ernst Haeckl, the great popularizer of Darwin’s theories on the continent wrote:
“The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect . . . In bodily as well as in mental qualities, no other human species can equal the Mediterranean. This species alone (with the exception of the Mongolian) has had an actual history; it alone has attained to that degree of civilization which seems to raise man above the rest of nature.” Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation: Or The Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes. A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of Evolution in General, and of that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in Particular, translated by E. Ray Lankester, 6th English ed., First German Publication 1868, (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1914), 2:321
and
“If one must draw a sharp boundary between them [i.e., higher mammals and man], it has to be drawn between the most highly developed and civilized man on the one hand, and the rudest savages on the other, and the latter have to be classed with the animals.” Haeckel, Ibid., Vol. II, 365.
Or how about this from Darwin’s friend Huxley:
“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.” T.H. Huxley, Lectures and Lay Sermons (1871; reprint, London: Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent, 1926), 115.
The point of my earlier post was that by the turn of the 20th century the link between racism and evolution was so entrenched in orthodox thought that it made it into the Encyclopedia Britannica, which some would say is the very epitome of current conventional learning.
The link continued to be made well into the 20th Century:
“The new creed [i.e., Christianity] was thus thrown open to all mankind. Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti evolutionary in its aim?” Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Van Rees Press, 1947), 72
Evolutionists, when they are being honest, admit this link:
“We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Human Equality as a Contingent Factor of History,” Natural History (November 1984): 28, 26-32.
“Since Darwin’s death, all has not been rosy in the evolutionary garden. The theories of the Great Bearded One have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social reformers – and scientists – to support racist and bigoted views.” M. Brookes, “Ripe Old Age,” review of Of Flies, Mice and Men, by Francois Jacob, New Scientist, January 1999, 41.
The Darwinists who responded to my previous post were not honest. Instead of facing the facts, they tried to deny the undeniable connection between Darwin and racism, or they tried to change the subject by saying, “hey, some people who say they are Christians are racists too.”
This would be amusing if it were not so tragic. Someone said, “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.”
This is the bottom line:
(1) It takes only the tiniest step to go from Darwin’s theory to the conclusion that some races are “lower” than others. Darwin took that step himself; his contemporaries took it with him, and by the turn of the 20th Century it was “conventional wisdom.” Note to Darwinists: Them’s the facts; you don’t advance your cause by denying them.
(2) Nothing Jesus said gives the slightest credence to racist views. Therefore, racists who call themselves Christians hold their views in the very teeth of the teachings of the Christ they purport to follow. So Darwinists. What is your point? That some people – even some people who call themselves “Christian” – are stupid or evil or both? No one denies that. Sadly for your position, this does notthing to blunt the force of (1) above.
It’s almost as if the Evos showed up to confirm the original post!
Some of what evidence? All we get are paragraphs, sketches, discovery channel animations and newspaper editorials. I have five different high school biology texts, covering 30 years, and not a single photograph to support the sketches they offer.
I see no conflict as pertains to the subject presently under discussion. The marketplace of ideas itself is Darwinian. Attempts to stop its proper functioning through the use of force are doomed to failure.
when do you foresee the loss of the Marxist/Gramscian stranglehold on academia?
Outside of my purview. (No clue.)
The evo-atheist will never admit it but thats as deep as their evidence/data gets.
[[All we get are paragraphs, sketches, discovery channel animations and newspaper editorials.]]
That and statements like “There’s mountains of evidence’ and ‘You ignant Creatards have no right discussing or examining the evidences for yourselves’ because ‘you wouldn’t understand it because you don’t have degrees with a phd behind your name’
Apparently, we’re too ignant to recognize blatant deceit in scientific claims when we’re handed them- Better to just follow hte herd and bleet once in awhile to signify our compliance with hte doctrine of Darwin
a. Without arguing that point - do you think there is a danger in someone who embraces evolutionary theory to, as a result, have racist tendencies?
No, I have know ID people and Creationists that were extremely racist. Racists come from all types.
b. For example, if you believed whites were inferior because they tended to have a higher percentage of body fat. Or that blacks were inferior because their average brain mass was smaller. Or that Asians were the preferred race because their average IQ is higher.
Biologically there are no races in Homo Sapiens Sapiens. http://record.wustl.edu/archive/1998/10-15-98/articles/races.html
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Lifescience/HumanRaces/MeaningofRace/MeaningofRace.htm
I am a college Math Professor. As a general observation the Asians are not ‘born’ smarter, they just work harder.
c. If that were the case, would it or would it not make sense to encourage the reproduction of races with preferred traits, and to discourage the reproduction of races with “bad traits?”
Again, genetically there are no races. This picking of traits is getting into dangerous territory for families. A few years ago, a set of parents had another child hoping the new baby would have the 25% chance of having some type of blood trait. This situation would allow a transfusion to save the life of an older son. Luckily (I guess) this did work for this family.
d. Additionally, what about people with “genetic defects?” I use quotes because there is a variety of opinion as to what genetic defects are. For example, if you are committed to an evolutionary world view, does it make sense to allow people with diabetes to reproduce? How about people with cerebral palsy?
My personal answer is leave people alone. Who tells people not to reproduce: the gov’t, insurance companies, my church or your church, etc. Big can of worms here too. If my DNA tells everyone that I will develop a major heart problems in my 40’s, do companies have to hire me? .. do any/some insurance companies have to insure me? Now they do, but as test results become more specific who knows what laws may be in our the future.
e. Anyone of an evolutionary mindset is welcome to respond. I am not implying that you are racist or a eugenicist. I am asking, do you see a danger with the possible results of an evolutionary world view? How can we prevent racism or eugenic ideas from being implemented in a world where evolution is accepted as correct?
From my talking with my biological and sociological colleagues on campus, the term eugenics and the concept of eugenics was ripped from the sociological disciplines and placed on the evolutionary theory buy people trying to discredit evolution and stretch the theory to mean things in was never intended to include.
Don't confuse the Theory of Evolution with the various theories of the mechanisms that bring about the Theory of Evolution. Also remember that ALL SCIENCE IS THEORY. Nothing is proved, even gravity. There truely are no laws of gravity. Gravity is only a theory and honestly it is a poor theory too. Another expample, The Theory of Light should be the Theories of Light. There are two major theories and at least one minor theory that I am aware of.
Have a great day
Paul C
Thanks for the ping!
Actually, no they even lose it there. Running the probability, even quadrillions of years would not be enough.
People have used the Bible, in particular, the Curse of Ham, to justify racism against and slavery of blacks. That no more invalidates the Bible than racists using the theory of evolution as justification invalidates evolution.
The way to prevent racism and eugenic ideas from taking place are the same, whether one accept evolution, believes in the Bible, or both: Respect for individuals and their rights.
Religion respects individualism through its recognition of free will and the idea that each individual is answerable to God. Evolution, at least to my thinking, upholds individualism in that all individuals (with rare exception, such as identical twins) have individual genetic codes, individual potentials, and that the differences of ability and varying advantages each genetic code has should be respected.
Furthermore, religion teaches us that we have God-given natural rights -- again related to free will and one's relationship to God. As for the connection between evolution and natural rights, any reasonable survey of history will show that, in general, those nations and people who have most respected the rights of individuals -- including caring for the handicapped -- are those that have generally thrived over the long-term and had people who were healthy and long-lived.
Any idea or ideal, no matter how good or truthful, can be twisted and used for evil. The fact that both the Judeo-Christian tradition and evolution point to respect for the individual and upholding of natural rights indicates that they are not in opposition to each other. Rather, they are different lenses that give different perspectives on the same reality.
“No, I have know ID people and Creationists that were extremely racist. Racists come from all types.”
I am sure that some who believe in creation are racist. What I am wondering, though, is does evolutionary theory promote some racism, even if inadvertently. Creation says that God made man one race, in His image, and He’s their Father. I believe that tends to unify mankind. Evolution teaches survival of the fittest, natural selection, and the continual perfecting of species. I see that as potentially dividing mankind.
“As a general observation the Asians are not ‘born’ smarter, they just work harder.”
I didn’t mean to imply that Asians are born smarter. It’s just a stereotype that might play into eugenic thinking.
“Again, genetically there are no races.” That is news to me, and welcome news, too. However, is there no genetic difference between the races? If you examine blood from different races, you can’t see the difference in the genes? I presumed you could, what with DNA matching and so forth.
“My personal answer is leave people alone.” Mine too, but my concern is that in the interest of “bettering the human race,” those who espouse evolutionary theory could use that as a platform for eugenic laws.
“Also remember that ALL SCIENCE IS THEORY.” I very much appreciate that statement! It gets wearying trying to get that point across sometimes.
I wish you a good day as well - any response to my responses would be enlightening.
“People have used the Bible, in particular, the Curse of Ham, to justify racism against and slavery of blacks”
That’s not orthodox Christian doctrine, never has been.
Are you saying that one would have to twist evolutionary theory in order to come up with justification for eugenics?
I don’t think they’d have to twist it or cherry pick it. I think it’s very blatant.
That doesn’t mean I think everyone who believes in evolution is a eugenicist. I just think it’s a danger when embracing the theory, particularly if it’s embraced as a whole by a culture.
“Evolution, at least to my thinking, upholds individualism in that all individuals (with rare exception, such as identical twins) have individual genetic codes, individual potentials, and that the differences of ability and varying advantages each genetic code has should be respected.
I appreciate that as your point of view, but I must say most will not see any of the “varying advantages” of Down’s Syndrome, schizophrenia, juvenile diabetes, or other genetically based problems. Frankly, from a purely evolutionary point of view, I don’t either. I do see the value of all of us as made in the image of God for His glory and purposes, though.
LOL!
[[I am sure that some who believe in creation are racist.]]
I’m a racist- I came in second place in a foot race to the fridge the other day-
[[That doesn’t mean I think everyone who believes in evolution is a eugenicist]]
Nope but most indeed are Dental Eugenists
I disagree. My reading of evolutionary theory is that it does have to be twisted to justify eugenics.
Indeed, I think there is a much stronger case that genetic variety -- the opposite of eugenics -- is the better course to take, in that more possible combinations result in a wider range of results and advantages and more opportunity to adjust to and take advantage of change.
I appreciate that as your point of view, but I must say most will not see any of the “varying advantages” of Down’s Syndrome, schizophrenia, juvenile diabetes, or other genetically based problems. Frankly, from a purely evolutionary point of view, I don’t either. I do see the value of all of us as made in the image of God for His glory and purposes, though.
Some genetic diseases do have specific advantages. Sickle-cell anemia, for example, evolved as a defense against malaria (or, if you prefer, was created by God as a defense against malaria). Other examples are more general or, perhaps, are exaggeration of beneficial traits -- Schizophrenia appears to be related to creativity, though perhaps that's just an urban myth.
On a more general scale, genetic diseases are a challenge to be overcome. As an intelligent species, we thrive on intellectual challenge. Overcoming one problem leads to answers to others. And, frankly, we could ask why a good God would allow genetic illnesses such as Down’s Syndrome, schizophrenia, and juvenile diabetes to exist. I'd say it's the exact same answer as why genetic diseases, in general are not disadvantageous to our species. The challenge of learning to care for such people makes us better people spiritually, as well as intellectually.
From a purely scientific point of view, evolution does not change our species for better or worse; it just changes. However, from a spiritual point of view -- or, at least, my spiritual point of view -- we are created in God's image, but we have a long way to go. There is much that can and should happen -- that must happen -- to make us more in God's image.
God is the creator. Evolution is the means -- the ongoing means -- to fulfilling God's plan. To preach eugenics is like cherry-picking the Bible. To deny evolution is to deny God's plan. That is my faith.
Agree or disagree. But please accept that to accept evolution, one does not need to defy or deny God. And accept that for at least some people to accept evolution is to praise God.
“FreeRepublic is not the place for reasoned discussions regarding evolution.
The most vocal proponents of rational thought have left or have been culled...”
Just evolution?
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.