Does evolutionary thought propagate racism?

[napajohn]

Darwin, like most men of European descent in the 1800s, thought that other races were inferior to their own. Like Abraham Lincoln (who was born the same day as Darwin) Darwin thought that other races were inferior, but were entitled to their dignity, freedom, and the right to the fruits of their own labor. For this, Darwin was considered to be a liberal. And at the time, he was.

Science moved on, and scientists soon discovered that "race" had no objective existence, and that racial differences were merely social constructs, not biological facts. Hence, in modern times, evolutionists have been overwhelminging against racism.

That's not true of creationism:

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites."

This is the opinion of Henry Morris, founder of the Institute for Creation research. From the 1800s? Nope. Early 1990s. 'Nuff said.

where did you get this quote?...can you cite references?

 

[Ishmael Borg]

where did you get this quote?...can you cite references?

Here's one place out of many that a Google search yielded. It's funny, the sites that use Morris's views as support for theirs do not include some of the more inflammatory elements of his viewpoint.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html

 

[Mike Flynn]

where did you get this quote?...can you cite references?

Its no surprise that some creationists (and other Christians) have pseudo-racist views. We have seen it right here when people claim that those with mental or physical disabilities must have been more sinful than 'healthier people'.

IOW, they correlate ability with status and worth in a spiritual sense.

Don't get me wrong here...People who make these kinds of claims have obviously misinterpreted biblical theology on this point.

But so have those who interpret the science of evolution in a racial context.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

where did you get this quote?...can you cite references?

I don't know if the Barbarian is still around but this well known quote is from The Beginning of the World by Henry Morris, 2nd edition 1991, page 148.

One of my highschool girl friends parents were from Alabama and among the most racist people I ever met. That was during the early 60s. They were also fundamentalist Christians and like most Southern racists they supported their views in favor of segregation using Bible verses. My mother often argued with them using Bible verses to support her position against segregation. By then I had figured out that someone could quote something from the Bible to support nearly anything.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[napajohn]

I don't know if the Barbarian is still around but this well known quote is from The Beginning of the World by Henry Morris, 2nd edition 1991, page 148.

Actually, if you read that talkorigins cite it mentions that the book that the author used was from "some obscure book out of the Iowa State library" if my memory is correct..follow Bergmans reply to that and you can see that this claim (that he and Morris are racists)is not only false but libelous:
http://www.rae.org/notracist.html
Please read the official position of Morris at icr.org
I had the moderatorrs look into the validity of the TO claim...I have met and dined with Morris at a table where many were Asian, black, and not white...He has spoken the same message at black churches..and I can say FROM DIRECT EXPERIENCES that HE IS NOT A RACIST.

One of my highschool girl friends parents were from Alabama and among the most racist people I ever met. That was during the early 60s. They were also fundamentalist Christians and like most Southern racists they supported their views in favor of segregation using Bible verses. My mother often argued with them using Bible verses to support her position against segregation. By then I had figured out that someone could quote something from the Bible to support nearly anything.

Sorry to hear about this situation..but like you said I saw people who claimed
to be Christians justify adultery and physical violence as well..

 

[Dal M.]

I think it would be good to note that Darwin is the original mind behind the whole of the evolutino theory.

He was? That's odd. Most of the time people just credit him with discovering natural selection.

He wrote a book people call today "The Origin of Species", but you won't hear very many evolutionists recite the whole title, which is "The Origin of Species and Favored " (emphasis added). Thats not the whole of the title, but that is more of it.

Why not say the rest? The full title is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." And what you've failed to consider is that Darwin didn't really touch upon human evolution until "The Descent of Man"; in this context, "races" simply means "strains." There are "races" of pea plants, flying squirrels, et cetera.

It would also be good to note that Darwin himself was a hardcore racist and sexist.

And a staunch abolitionist who admitted his wife was brighter than he was. Odd behavior for a "hardcore racist and sexist," eh?

 

[Jet Black]

Actually, if you read that talkorigins cite it mentions that the book that the author used was from "some obscure book out of the Iowa State library"

[1] A special "thank you" to Dan Ashlock for tracking down the relatively obscure Morris book, The Beginning Of the World, in a library at Iowa State University.

It's Morrises book, and it is obscure.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Actually, if you read that talkorigins cite it mentions that the book that the author used was from "some obscure book out of the Iowa State library" if my memory is correct..follow Bergmans reply to that and you can see that this claim (that he and Morris are racists)is not only false but libelous:
http://www.rae.org/notracist.html
Please read the official position of Morris at icr.org
I had the moderatorrs look into the validity of the TO claim...I have met and dined with Morris at a table where many were Asian, black, and not white...He has spoken the same message at black churches..and I can say FROM DIRECT EXPERIENCES that HE IS NOT A RACIST.


Sorry to hear about this situation..but like you said I saw people who claimed
to be Christians justify adultery and physical violence as well..

You asked for a reference and I gave it.

If you want to buy the book, In the Beginning, that is quoted it is for sale here and other places.

http://www.parable.com/parable/item_0890511624.htm

The TO article does not actually accuse Morris of being a racist. Did you read it? Here is a quote.

It may be difficult for some to understand why I conclude that Morris is, in fact, not really a racist. After all, Morris has written that the "racial character" of a certain population results in that population being "less intellectual," "philosophical," and "religious" than the other approximately two-thirds of humanity. Furthermore, Morris sometimes defended these statements to me and other times simply contradicted them, but never rescinded them. However, I believe that it is possible for generally tolerant individuals to occasionally slip up and write something careless and insensitive. These errors do not necessarily reveal anything sinister, and an individual's beliefs and views change over time. I am happy to give Morris the benefit of the doubt.

The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[ThePhoenix]

It's Morrises book, and it is obscure.

Well with statements like that it's no wonder it's obscure. Not only is it blatently racist, it doesn't look like particularly good scholarship either.

 

[SLP]

Did he break out the pseudo-biblical language? When I beat up one of his posts he started saying things like 'from where dost thou get this nonsense young man?'

Priceless.

I don't think so, but he did repeatedly mis-spell my name, even after I pointed it out.

That was after he had accused me of plagiarizing myself...

 

[SLP]

I know you! you're Dr Scott L Page aren't you?!?!?

sorry, I couldn't resist

Say - you are as clever as Crusader - but now I shall run away from this thread and this board because you know who I am!!!



And therefore, your arguments will all be right!!!

 

[revolutio]

It should be noted about the whole Nazis using evolution thing that the Nazis frequently warped material to support their belief structure. This was not entirely intentional, the Nazi's were so pationate about their beliefs that they often jumped on material without even fully comprehending it. A prime example of this is Nietzsche's works, particularly Thus Spake the Zarathustra. They ignored his extensive writings denouncing anti-Semitism.

 

[Aggie]

There's something I probably should point out here, that I think I've pointed out before.

The principle of natural selection DOES leave open the possibility that there will be certain groups of people that will end up dying off because they are less-suited to the environment than others. Whether or not this SHOULD happen is a different question; it depends on how important it is that humans continue to evolve. There are plenty of people who think that this is something that has happened and continues to happen, but that it's not so valuable that people need to try to encourage it.

However, even for someone who thinks that it IS important for humans to adapt to their environments--a Social Darwinist--neither natural selection nor any other scientific theory makes any prediction about WHICH groups should die off. Chances are that it's not something anyone can figure out. It would have to be different in some countries than in others, since an adaptation that is useful in one environment might not be useful in another. It is also very unlikely to coincide with a particular ethnic group. It's not something that any human could possibly figure out, especially considering that people who have this sort of power have a tendency to abuse it.

And most Social Darwinists will probably realize that they don't NEED to figure it out, either. Natural Selection is something that will happen even without a government causing it, as long as the government doesn't do anything to block it. For hundreds of millions of years, all that had to happen for natural selection to take place was that each animal makes the best effort it can to survive in its environment, which caused those of them that were best at it to be most likely to survive and reproduce.

That can happen in a capitalism.

In order for natural selection to take place in a society, it is essential that the government treat all groups of people equally. Although in terms of the people's suitability to the environment, they may not really BE equal, no sort of preferential treatment from the government will be able to select the people best-suited to the environment anywhere near as well as the results of competition among the people themselves will. And if governments start treating people unequally, chances are that they'll mess the process up.

It is important to remember that when Thomas Jefferson referred to all men being "created equal" in the Declaration of Independence, he was referring specifially to how the government should treat them in order to make a point about the British occupiers of the American colonies not doing their jobs properly. The Declaration of Independence is not intended to make a comment on the actual state of humanity, but merely how governments should treat them.

What Jefferson thought of humans' actual status compared to one another isn't relevant to the Declaration of Independence, but if you're wondering what Jefferson actually thought about it, it's described in a letter he wrote to John Adams from October 28, 1813:

"I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virture and talents."

 

[billwald]

(didn't read all the posts, but) It should be obvious that "race" is the equivalent of "breed." All dogs are canines but there are physical and mental differences between the breeds of canines. Same with every sort of domesticated animal. Humans are a form of domesticated (civilized) animal.

 

[john crawford]

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).

Yes, evolutionary thought has propagated racism according to:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-164.htm

 

[toff]

Yes, evolutionary thought has propagated racism according to:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-164.htm

Of course! What else can you expect of ICR? Not as if they are credible or anything.

 

[john crawford]

Of course! What else can you expect of ICR? Not as if they are credible or anything.

They are more credible than Darwinian evolutionary racists.

 

[Jet Black]

I am taking that as a personal attack, since I am an evolutionist and not a racist. You do realise that Evolution does not care at all about race, it has absolutely nothing to say on the matter. Racism and preference of individual groups over another is just another pointless human past time which they utilise in order to slaughter and kill those who they do not like.

 

[john crawford]

I am taking that as a personal attack, since I am an evolutionist and not a racist. You do realise that Evolution does not care at all about race, it has absolutely nothing to say on the matter. Racism and preference of individual groups over another is just another pointless human past time which they utilise in order to slaughter and kill those who they do not like.

So why do you believe in Darwin's racial theories of Negro evolution from African apes?

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-164.htm

I take Darwin's theories as a personal attack so we're even.

 

[Jet Black]

So why do you believe in Darwin's racial theories of Negro evolution from African apes?

because negroes did evolve from african apes... so what?