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.
No, I think a tendency towards racism is an inbuilt trait (or consequence of inbuilt traits) in most of humanity. Humans will then seize upon whatever is handy (sometimes religion, sometimes science) to justify their inherent bias.
"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.
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?”
You are seriously misinterpreting an important part of basic evolutionary theory. There is exactly one criteria of a 'good' trait in evolutionary theory: a trait that increases the frequency of successful gene transmission is 'good'. That's it. Stupidity, body fat, and math ability have absolutely zero to do with evolutionary 'goodness' unless they impact reproductive success (and are heritable characteristics). So it is impossible to draw justification for any breeding program whatsoever from evolution itself; evolution is value-neutral.
"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?"
Like I said above, from the perspective of evolution, there is only one kind of 'genetic defect': one that prevents you from having kids (or prevents your relatives from having them). That's it. An example: Matthias Buchinger, who was basically a flipper baby. Genetic defect, right? WRONG. This little guy had fourteen kids, which makes him a smashing evolutionary success. Certainly more of a success than me, with my strong healthy limbs and paltry brood of children.
Finally, I have a question for you. Do you disapprove of eugenics because you think it is immoral or because you think it doesn't work? The examples you cited for eugenic improvements would certainly fall under the umbrella of so-called 'micro-evolution', which virtually every creationist accepts. So if you accept micro-evolution, wouldn't that make you just as inclined towards eugenic tinkering as the highest high priest of the Church of Darwin?
I would say, rather, that I can see a danger that someone with racist tendencies might use the ToE to somehow justify it to themselves. But people with racist tendencies use all kinds of rationalizations, including religion-based ones, to justify it.
do you see a danger with the possible results of an evolutionary world view?
Let's say for the sake of argument that I do. What should we do with the theory, then? Should we stop trying to figure it out because that might lead to some dangerous places? What if it's actually correct?
“Let’s say for the sake of argument that I do. What should we do with the theory, then?”
I guess be on guard against the possible consequences. Formulate some good reasons to oppose eugenics and racism that are consistent with that view of our origins.
“Do you disapprove of eugenics because you think it is immoral or because you think it doesn’t work?”
Both, because I think anything that is immoral ultimately does not work.
“There is exactly one criteria of a ‘good’ trait in evolutionary theory: a trait that increases the frequency of successful gene transmission is ‘good’.”
I have not studied evolutionary theory exhaustively. It was taught to me and believed by me until I reached adulthood. That said, I thought a ‘good’ trait would be one that would enhance the survivability of a species. Diabetes, cerebral palsy, etc., do not. That is why I called them “undesireable traits.”
It is true, breeding against certain racial traits or breeding with a eugenic mindset is in fact “micro-evolution,” in other words, it’s contained within our species. So I see your point there. Those of us who believe we were directly created could still get into eugenics and such and not embrace evolutionary theory.
I think if you really believe that everyone in our species is equal before God, equally valuable, whether “defective” in some way or not, you’d be less inclined to be of a racist or eugenic mindset.
Similarly, if you believe we are the product of billions of random mutations with billions of random mutations in our future, with only the strong surviving, you might take a dimmer view of anyone who is handicapped or who you perceive to be inferior.
I don’t know that this would convince anyone to give up being evolutionary in their thinking. But I do think we need to consider the ramifications of our view of things.
“And, frankly, we could ask why a good God would allow genetic illnesses such as Down’s Syndrome, schizophrenia, and juvenile diabetes to exist.”
Sin and disease entered during the Fall, as a result of Adam’s sin. It’s not much debated among Bible believers. We all know why people get sick and why there is death.
In evolutionary theory, it’s just random mutation, which I find understandable. Born with any of the genetic defects that are out there, you are either going to die right way (miscarried) or sooner than average. Thus the healthier outlive and outreproduce the sicker, I get that point.
I’m not quite sure why sickle cell anemia, even if it is a protection against malaria, is an advantage, if it itself kills you. What is the advantage?
“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.” But it is to deny many Bible passages, unless you regard them all as allegory. That is the point where I suppose we diverge.
The fact that they have to resort to character attacks against Darwin isn't doing anyting for creation science except demonstrating how screwed up it's proponents are.
This isn't scientific debate, it's a plain, unvarnished borking.
Such as here for example:
"Our idealistic notions, strictly regulated by our academic wisdom and forced by our metaphysicians into the system of their abstract ideal-man, do not at all tally with the facts. Hence we can explain many of the errors of the idealistic philosophy and many of the practical mistakes that have been made in the recently acquired German colonies; these would have been avoided if we had had a better knowledge of the low psychic life of the natives (cf. the writings of Gobineau and Lubbock)."And here's something from the Haeckelian Herbert Hardwicke, Evolution of Mind:
Human beings have been discovered in wild and hitherto unexplored regions who have not the remotest idea of what we should term civilisation. They lead a wandering and useless life, sleeping at nights, not in huts, nor in caves, but squatting among the branches of tall trees, where they are placed out of the reach of savage animals. They do not appear capable of expressing their thoughts in sentences, but make use of exclamatory grunts, which serve the purposes of speech quite sufficiently for their limited requirements; and their general appearance approaches to a remarkable extent that of the higher apes, in that they are almost completely covered with hair, possess a dirty brown skin, short legs, long arms, and full abdomens, can pick up stones, sticks, etc., with their toes as well as their fingers, and show few if any signs of intellectual powers. Let any one visit the Zoological Gardens, in London, and carefully observe the apes exhibited there, and then say whether there is a vast difference between some of them and the human beings who answer to the above description. One need but visit the travelling menagerie of Messrs. Edmunds, and view their "missing link," an excellent sample of the chimpanzee troglodyte, to see that the difference between man and the lower animals is one only of degree, quite as much as regards intellect as bodily form. I once saw exhibited in the Jardin d'Acclimatation, in Paris, a lot of Patagonian or Fuegan (I forget which) natives, who were very little superior intellectually to the chimpanzee. They were stark naked, in a wretchedly dirty condition, and appeared quite incapable of anything like sustained mental effort. But these are by no means the lowest among the human species.
They use it because it is of use.
Creationist apologetics, meanwhile, is of absolutely no use to anybody except those that make an ill gotten buck shoveling misinformation to ill educated cretins.
Much as the communists hated Darwin's theory because to them it smacked of capitalism with uneven distribution of resources, they would hate the idea of antagonistic pleiotropy even more.
Basically there is no such thing as a free lunch.
We could most certainly selectively breed people for desired traits, but they would all most certainly come with an associated disadvantage.
Before we breed people to become race horses we should take a long hard look at race horses. They have thin legs prone to breaking, they have thin skin prone to cracking, and overall are not as fecund or robust as a wild horse.
Now consider what traits a government would like its citizens to possess. I can assure you that being a rebellious free thinker wouldn't be high on the list.
Actually I regard it as neither literal nor allegory, but simplification. When I was four of five years old, I asked my mother where babies came from. My mother said it was the result of a "special hug" between a husband and wife.
That's how I regard the Bible on creation: The "special hug" version, written by God, for people of 3500 years ago, who were not ready for or capable of understanding a full scientific description.
And as I grew into an adult and learned or other figured out the details of the "special hug," so the human species has matured and learned or otherwise figured out the details of how God created the universe. As a species, we know it was more than just a "special hug." As individuals, we should know that.
To go back a moment:
Sin and disease entered during the Fall, as a result of Adam’s sin. It’s not much debated among Bible believers. We all know why people get sick and why there is death.
Except that's not what the Bible says. Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.
The fruit Eve and Adam ate was that of the knowledge of good and evil. That means that good and evil existed; mankind just didn't know they existed. Furthermore, God says that there is also the tree of life, which if eaten from Adam and Eve would live forever; which means they would have died, whether or not they ate from the tree of knowledge; they just didn't know that they would. That is what the Bible says, when you choose to read and consider the more difficult passages.
The sin that Eve, then Adam, committed did not bring evil, death and disease, into the world. They brought awareness of evil, death, and disease into the world. Adam and Eve might have lived out their lives in innocence; they chose not to. And for that loss of innocence, they gained awareness, of evil, death and disease, but likewise awareness of good, of love and learning.
Edenic humankind did not suffer, because we were too innocent to realize how the world worked. We did not realize we became ill and died. Adam and Eve ended that innocence and made it necessary to learn so that we may, at least, alleviate our suffering.
The ancient Greek myth brings a different, but important focus on this. That story stated that Eve, in that version called Pandora, released evil into the world, but in the end, she also released hope. Indeed, when we concentrate on Eve bringing having brought the knowledge of evil into the world, we ignore that she also brought the knowledge of good.
Ignoring science is an attempt to escape back to that Edenic state. But it is too late. We suffer, we die, and we know it. To ignore science and to deny evolution is to revolt against God. It is an attempt to escape the intellectual punishment of Adam and Eve's rebellion.
God's punishment is that we must strive, by the sweat of our brow, to survive. But the harder we strive, the better off we are, the lighter the punishment lies on our shoulders. To learn science, to understand God's universe is to accept God's punishment, be more in His image, and to be the better, both physically and spiritually, for it.
Haldane was a communist. So was Pearson. Ferri was a communist too. Clarence Darrow was a communist. Robert Blatchford was a communist. Let's have a little reading from Blatchford:
First, as to Adam and the Fall and inherited sin. Evolution, historical research, and scientific criticism have disposed of Adam. Adam was a myth. Hardly any educated Christians now regard him as an historic person. But -- no Adam, no Fall; no Fall, no Atonement; no Atonement, no Saviour. Accepting Evolution, how can we believe in a Fall? When did man fall? Was it before he ceased to be a monkey, or after? Was it when he was a tree man, or later? Was it in the Stone Age, or the Bronze Age, or in the Age of Iron? There never was any "Fall." Evolution proves a long, slow rise. And if there never was a Fall, why should there be any Atonement? Christians accepting the theory of evolution have to believe that God allowed the sun to form out of the nebula, and the earth to form from the sun. That He allowed man to develop slowly from the speck of protoplasm in the sea. That at some period of man's gradual evolution from the brute, God found man guilty of some sin, and cursed him. That some thousands of years later God sent His only Son down upon the earth to save man from Hell. But Evolution shows man to be, even now, an imperfect creature, an unfinished work, a building still undergoing alterations, an animal still evolving... (pg. 124)Here are some blurbs from a communist publishing house:Are we to believe that the God who created all this boundless universe got so angry with the children of the apes that He condemned them all to Hell for two score centuries, and then could only appease His rage by sending His own Son to be nailed upon a cross ? Do you believe that? Can you believe it? No. As I said before, if the theory of evolution be true, there was nothing to atone for, and nobody to atone. Man has never sinned against God. In fact, the whole of this old Christian doctrine is a mass of error. There was no creation. There was no Fall. There was no Atonement. There was no Adam, and no Eve, and no Eden, and no Devil, and no Hell. (pg. 125)
BOELSCHE, Wilhelm. The Evolution of Man. Translated by Ernest Untermann. Cloth, 50 cents. This popular work, already in its sixth thousand, is by no means a mere summary of Darwin's "Descent of Man;" it is rather a summary of the work accomplished by a whole generation of scientists along the lines opened up by Darwin. He was too genuine a man of science to claim that a theory was proved before the proofs were ready, and those who know the evolution theory only from the cheap reprints of his great works are sometimes confused by the noisy claims of theologians to the effect that evolution is still an unproved theory. This little book gives the proof in form as readable as it is convincing. The "missing links" so much talked of a generation ago have been found, and their pictures are in this book.UNTERMANN, Ernest. Science and Revolution. Cloth, 194 pages, 50 cents. A history of the evolution of the theory of evolution, from the earliest scientific writings that have been preserved, those of the Greek philosophers, down to the present time. The author shows how the ruling classes, living on the labor of others, have always supported some form of theolegy or mysticism, while the working classes have developed the theory of evolution, which is rounded out to its logical completion by the work of Marx, Engels and Dietzgen. The author frankly recognizes that no writer can avoid being influenced by his class environment, and he himself speaks distinctly as a proletarian and a socialist. "Science and Revolution" is an indispensable book, in that it makes clear the conclusions drawn by socialists from the facts of science.
“Quite naturally, then, academia became the home of America’s foremost evolutionists as universities in turn cheered their efforts to bring in grants.”
Where Darwin Meets the Bible: Creationists and Evolutionists in America
By Larry A. Witham
Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005
Please educate yourself on Lysenko.
The Communists hated Darwin’s theory.
They sent geneticists and anyone who promoted Darwin’s theory to Siberia.
A former teacher of mine was banned from teaching in the USSR until Ronald Reagan (”who shall always live within my prayers” he would say) asked for him by name, to allow him to escape Communism.
And what does that quote have to do with the fact that scientists worldwide are not “forced” to use Darwin’s theory? Scientists all around the world use Darwin’s theory because it WORKS.
They support it for the sake of filthy lucre.
I’ll take the documented evidence over your blather, thank you.
Sorry, but I know some of the most successful genetic scientists in California, and they say that evolution is pure politics.
Its the groupies, like yourself, that think it makes them look “scientific” that cling to it.
In Defense of Lysenko, JBS Haldane, Darwin Medalist, co-founder of the Modern Synthesis.
"Vavilov still directs research on a vast scale. So far from having been muzzled for his alleged anti-Darwinian views he communicated seventeen papers on genetical topics to the Moscow Academy of Sciences between January 1st and April 10th of 1940. (Vavilov's name is now less prominent, but up till June 1941 the output of genetical work showed no sign of abatement.)"Vavilov was sent to the gulag in 1940. He died in 1943.
I know innumerable successful scientists in California, as I work with them. They know evolution is the theory that explains the evidence.
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.