Does evolutionary thought propagate racism?

Crusadar · #1 17th April 2003, 08:41 PM

Does evolutionary thought propagate racism? By this I am not saying that evolution per se is the only cause of racism - there may be many other reasons. But can anyone give a good reason why it doesn't since according to evolutionary theories some people groups are considered lower on the evolutionary scale than others and therefore are less ______________ (fill in the blank).

Arikay · #2 17th April 2003, 08:46 PM

Well, according to Evolution, we are all human.

However, you might be surprised as to who according to adaption are more addapted to their climates.
The darker skin people are more naturally adapted to their environments than lighter skinned people, but that doesnt make them higher or lower on the evolutionary tree.

Does that propogate racism? Only if your a racist looking for some strange and rather faulty excuse to be one.

So, No evolution does not propogate racism.

seebs · #3 17th April 2003, 08:50 PM

Where do you get the idea that there's a "higher" or a "lower" on the evolutionary scale? Kurt Vonnegut did a book the premise of which was that humans might eventually evolve into much less intelligent beings, because of all the trouble intelligence causes...

MartinM · #4 17th April 2003, 08:57 PM

Surely the same (non)argument would apply equally to creationists - who, after all, believe that all races are descended from Noah and family.

Pete Harcoff · #5 17th April 2003, 09:00 PM

Today at 07:41 PM Crusadar said this in Post #1

But can anyone give a good reason why it doesn't since according to evolutionary theories some people groups are considered lower on the evolutionary scale

There is no part of the theory of evolution that suggests that one "race" of human is "lower" or "higher" than another. The only reason there are different "races" is because of different climate adaptions.

seebs · #6 17th April 2003, 09:02 PM

Today at 06:57 PM MartinM said this in Post #4

Surely the same (non)argument would apply equally to creationists - who, after all, believe that all races are descended from Noah and family.

Actually, curiously, I've seen a creationist argument for racism; the theory is that God wouldn't have made different races if He wanted them to mix.

Crusadar · #7 17th April 2003, 09:05 PM

Arikay said this in Post #2: So, No evolution does not propogate racism.

So what you are saying that it doesn't? Then why are some people groups considered closer to the apes than others?

Have you forgotten the full title of Darwin's book: “On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Or have you read his later book “The descent of man.” Very racist readings if you ask me, and by the ever popular "father" of evolution himself.

By pointing this out I am not calling evolutionists racists. What I am suggesting is that evolution is a basis for many racists beliefs. Is it not?

seebs · #8 17th April 2003, 09:09 PM

Today at 07:05 PM Crusadar said this in Post #7

Arikay said this in Post #2: So, No evolution does not propogate racism.

So what you are saying that it doesn't? Then why are some people groups considered closer to the apes than others?

Have you forgotten the full title of Darwin's book: “On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

Or have you read his later book “The descent of man.” Very racist readings if you ask me, and by the ever popular "father" of evolution himself.

By pointing this out I am not calling evolutionists racists. What I am suggesting is that evolution is a basis for many racists beliefs. Is it not?

Not for a long time. Back then, *everyone* was racist; racist thought was fundamental to most theology that far back, too. I mean, keep in mind, you're talking about the same region of history when the Southern Baptist Convention was *FOUNDED* on a platform of endorsement of slavery!

However, evolution *destroyed* those theories, by proving that one race isn't "further along" or "behind" another, but that we're all VERY closely related. To try to claim that one race is "closer to the apes" than another is like claiming that a cocker spaniel is closer to a wolf than a greyhound; it doesn't even make sense.

So, evolutionary theory, and the resulting progress in biology, have done a lot to make racism untenable.

Crusadar · #9 17th April 2003, 09:12 PM

seebs said this in Post #3: Where do you get the idea that there's a "higher" or a "lower" on the evolutionary scale? Kurt Vonnegut did a book the premise of which was that humans might eventually evolve into much less intelligent beings, because of all the trouble intelligence causes...

If that were the case then what is your rationalization about the classification of the races in evolutionary textbooks – with the use of terms such as – Negroid, Mongoloid, or Caucasoid, with the Caucasoids often at the very top of the scale.

 

seebs · #10 17th April 2003, 09:17 PM

Today at 07:12 PM Crusadar said this in Post #9

PM seebs said this in Post #3: Where do you get the idea that there's a "higher" or a "lower" on the evolutionary scale? Kurt Vonnegut did a book the premise of which was that humans might eventually evolve into much less intelligent beings, because of all the trouble intelligence causes...

If that were the case then what is your rationalization about the classification of the races in evolutionary textbooks – with the use of terms such as – Negroid, Mongoloid, or Caucasoid,

Those terms survive because they denote identifiable physical features, but it's been a long time (50+ yeaars) since anyone thought that one group was "further along" than another.

I can observe that some people have darker skin than others, or differently-shaped noses, without any implication that one is "further along" than another. It's not an evolution thing. Evolution doesn't make any predictions about which of two groups is "more advanced".