A post




Darwin’s

Sacred Cause


Creationists still try to smear evolutionary science by claiming that it is intrinsically racist, 

and in particular, that Darwin was racist.


1) First of all, it must be pointed out that whether or not you like an idea, 

your feelings have no relevance to its veracity.

 

The thought, "I don't like this so it can't be true" has all the hallmarks of a toddler's reasoning, 

reasoning that most of us grow out of by about the age of three.


2) Secondly, and of equal importance, evolutionary science replaced earlier notions 

of human origins that were inherently based on the idea of "race". 




Polygenism was the idea that held sway before Darwin. 


Each "race" arose or was created separately, propagated 

by the then leading "authority", Louis Agassiz, a man, 

who, in contrast to Darwin, could not even bear to be in the company of Sub-Saharan Africans or their recent descendants.

Louis Agassiz


Although Agassiz did not openly support slavery, his ideas were popular among the slavers of the Southern U.S., the last people to abandon the Atlantic slave trade.


3) Moving on to Hitler: Was he influenced more by Darwin, or by Agassiz? 


Let's look at Mein Kampf. From Chapter 11, Nation and Race,




Adolph Hitler

"The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves.


The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. 


But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice."


Here, Hitler is clearly equating "races" to species. This is biologically illiterate. "Races" can interbreed, and the idea of negative consequences of  miscegenation have been thoroughly debunked. Different species cannot interbreed. It's the definition of species. Duh, Adolf.




Hitler was also greatly influenced by Martin Luther.

See "On the Jews and their Lies".

Luther fits into a tradition of antisemitism going back to the Middle Ages.

See Hitler’s antisemitism. Why did he hate the Jews?

Martin Luther


4) So, to Darwin,



Darwin argued that human "races" are not comparable to separate species. 


Humans form one single species, according to the scientific definition of species.


Nowadays, anyone with two or more brain cells to rub together accepts this,

even fundamentalists. 


But Darwin went much further. All life is related, and our view of life, 

and our view of us as being part of the wider living world,

is as inspiring as it is true.

See “Darwin’s Sacred Cause: 

How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution”.



Charles Darwin


See also,


5) But why does any of this matter?


Creationists tend to blame evolutionary science for all sorts of ills. Racism, genocide, moral decline

and (ironically) degeneracy - ills that clearly pre-date Darwin. It is the very accusation that evolution 

is responsible for these ills that is the problem. Why? Because it diverts attention from the real causes of our problems. It exploits the victims of our natures to promote a false analysis, and thus perpetuates suffering as a result of ignorance.

Further reading,

 
The Most Dangerous Animal - David Livingstone Smith


Less than Human  - David Livingstone Smith


Making Monsters: The Uncanny Power of Dehumanization - David Livingstone Smith


The Better Angels of Our Nature - Steven Pinker


Charles Darwin on Racism, Slavery, and Eugenics - Rory Cockshaw


Was Darwin a racist, and does evolution promote racism?

For  my own views, see https://barryhisblog.blogspot.com/p/why-evolutionary-science-is-vitally.html


…


The three-year olds will bleat that Darwin wrote, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, page 156.


But at the time of writing, the "civilised" (Christian) "races" were indeed exterminating the "savage" ones. 

And it’s not over yet. Darwin imagined that the “civilised races” would complete their genocide. What he meant by "civilised" and "savage" was purely cultural, and not biological. He made that very clear in his writings.


And on the subject of eugenics, he wrote, "The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." - Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, page 90.



Comments:


davetheroman@gmail.com8 May 2018 at 23:04

One problem is that we humans are a product of both our time and our culture. So in New Zealand we are used to equality between the sexes (women first got the vote in 1890). Currently our three top positions (Prime Minister, Governor-General and Chief Justice) are held by women and this is not considered remarkable. Darwin was a man of his time also and would have been affected by some of the prejudices of his time.

The other is that few creationists have any real knowledge of biology, particularly evolutionary biology. The exception would be Kurt Wise, who studied under Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard. He is on record as saying that he understands that the evidence for evolution is very sound, but prefers to believe (his version of) the Bible.


Barry Desborough9 May 2018 at 07:02

Here's what Dawkins has to say about Kurt Wise. http://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php


Unknown19 September 2021 at 13:49

Racism certainly existed before Darwin, but Darwin's writings made it much more legitimate to be racist...as even Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged.

The comment that few creationists have any real knowledge of biology is a very lame comment, and of course Dawkins would marginalize Kurt Wise, simply because he does not accept evolution as viable.


Anonymous29 May 2022 at 18:45

Since Darwin had the name and the reputation, people tried to associate their ideas with him, even, as in this case, their ideas directly contradicted his.


Anonymous21 August 2023 at 12:31

Denegrating people promoting ignorance and dishonesty as a virtue is what all moral, well reasoned people should do


Anonymous21 August 2023 at 17:21

Darwin made a rod for his back by using "Survival of the fittest". Often used as a cudgel to proclaim racist viewpoints.


Anonymous21 August 2023 at 18:26

Maybe, but those who pick it up and choose to beat him with it instead of taking three seconds to understand what he meant are still fully responsible for doing so.



Anonymous21 August 2023 at 23:14

The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions.


Anonymous22 August 2023 at 06:17

Please read "Darwin's Scared Cause: Race, Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins" Adrian Desmns and James Moore.

DaCharles Darwin was a truly gentle man and has been much aligned by ignorant people>

You could, of course read some of his books, too.



Comments

Post a Comment