What's racist about Darwin?

[Adrian Moir]

It's interesting how Richard Dawkins mentioned that he believes a racial human animal hierarchy exists within mankind from a biological perspective.
When this is the very same pseudo scientific ideology that was used in support of Nazi racial science called "scientific racism" according to the encyclopedia and peer reviewed articles on the subject of Darwinism and racism:

Wikipedia
Scientific racism
Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific. Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, race realism, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research.
Scientific racism was common during the period from the 1600s to the end of World War II. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.

Sage Journals
Peer reviewed article
Race, Racism, and Darwinism
William H. Jeynes
Abstract
This article examines the views of Darwinist evolution on issues regarding race and how this contributed to the spread of racism in the United States. The writings of Charles Darwin and a myriad of his followers are examined, including Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton, and others. The influence of Darwinism in contributing to the growth of institutional racism and the teaching of scientifically based racist thought is addressed. The article also examines how Darwinist evolutionary thought affected the nation’s beliefs about those with special needs and how this contributed to people’s perceptions about people of color. The author asserts that the blatant inaccuracies of Darwinist evolution regarding race raise questions about the theory’s overall veracity and how teachers should approach instruction regarding Darwin’s theory.

 

[chad kincham]

It's interesting how Richard Dawkins mentioned that he believes a racial human animal hierarchy exists within mankind from a biological perspective.
When this is the very same pseudo scientific ideology that was used in support of Nazi racial science called "scientific racism" according to the encyclopedia and peer reviewed articles on the subject of Darwinism and racism:

Wikipedia
Scientific racism
Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific. Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, race realism, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research.
Scientific racism was common during the period from the 1600s to the end of World War II. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.

Sage Journals
Peer reviewed article
Race, Racism, and Darwinism
William H. Jeynes
Abstract
This article examines the views of Darwinist evolution on issues regarding race and how this contributed to the spread of racism in the United States. The writings of Charles Darwin and a myriad of his followers are examined, including Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton, and others. The influence of Darwinism in contributing to the growth of institutional racism and the teaching of scientifically based racist thought is addressed. The article also examines how Darwinist evolutionary thought affected the nation’s beliefs about those with special needs and how this contributed to people’s perceptions about people of color. The author asserts that the blatant inaccuracies of Darwinist evolution regarding race raise questions about the theory’s overall veracity and how teachers should approach instruction regarding Darwin’s theory.

You hardly ever hear about Darwins second book, the descent of man, because in it Darwin exhibits the racism inherent in Darwinian gradualism, such as supposed sub- human species like the aborigines, and some other tribes, that he thought were inferior branches of humanity.

 

[SilverBear]

i

You hardly ever hear about Darwins second book, the descent of man, because in it Darwin exhibits the racism inherent in Darwinian gradualism, such as supposed sub- human species like the aborigines, and some other tribes, that he thought were inferior branches of humanity.

I'd ask if you could provide actual quotations to back this up but I know you can't

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The book, "Guns, Germs and Steel," debunks the racism ideas in evolution.

The development of groups had more to do with the difference between
hunter gatherer groups and agricultural groups. The latter tended to
advance because the elite were able to devote more time toward learning
than the hunter gatherers who had to survive on a day to day basis.

 

[chad kincham]

i

I'd ask if you could provide actual quotations to back this up but I know you can't

Darwin did distinguish between various human races, or “species of men,” and he believed that some were superior to others (1871, p. 395). Although he steered clear of these ideas in The Origin of Species, his second major work on evolutionary theory, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, did address the issue.

Darwin began the first chapter of The Descent of Man with these words: “He who wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals” (1871, p. 395). Later, in his chapter titled “On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man,” Darwin wrote:

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 civilised 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 (p. 521, emp. added).

Clearly, Darwin was convinced that the more “civilized races” (e.g., Caucasian) would one day exterminate the more “savage races,” which he considered to be less evolved (and thus more ape-like) than Caucasians. Darwin believed that “the Negro” and “Australian” are more of a sub-species, somewhere between Caucasians and apes. [NOTE: In addition to Darwin’s racist comments in The Descent of Man, he also included sexist statements. His evolutionary views led him to believe that “[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…. [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman…. [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman” (pp. 873-874).]

One of Darwin’s closest friends and defenders, the prominent, 19th-century English biologist Thomas Huxley, was even more direct in his evolutionary-based racist remarks. In his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White,” Huxley remarked:

It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant 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 prognathus 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 on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest (emp. added).

According to “Darwin’s Bulldog,” as Huxley was called, the “negro” is not equal to “the white man.” The alleged smaller-brained, big-jawed “Negro” supposedly cannot compete on the same playing field with the white man. Huxley espoused the false notion that “[t]he highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins” (1865, emp. added). Little did Huxley know that less then 150 years later an African-American would sit in the highest office of the most wealthy and powerful nation on Earth.

The fact is, Darwinian evolution implies that some groups of humans are closer to our alleged ape-like ancestors in their mental faculties than others. Thus, some groups of humans supposedly are superior to others.

 

[chad kincham]

The book, "Guns, Germs and Steel," debunks the racism ideas in evolution.

The development of groups had more to do with the difference between
hunter gatherer groups and agricultural groups. The latter tended to
advance because the elite were able to devote more time toward learning
than the hunter gatherers who had to survive on a day to day basis.

From the .gov website and the NIH:

Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” (Darwin 1871). Although female choice explains sexual selection, it is the males who evolve in order to meet the chosen criteria of strength and power; such nineteenth century differentiation between the sexes was crucial in providing an alleged biological basis for the superiority of the male.

Source: Darwin, race and gender

Darwin’s Descent of Man is the book evolutionists rarely mention, because it states that negros and aborigines are an inferior race, and that Caucasians were more evolutionarily advanced.

Hitler and the Nazi ‘master race’ claims that sought to use eugenics and death camps to eliminate all ‘inferior races’ came straight from evolution and Darwinism.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I just watched a very interesting interview by Jordon Peterson on YouTube,
which very much centered on this subject.

Evolution & the Challenges of Modern Life | Bret Weinstein & Heather Heying.

Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying, who are husband and wife BTW, are
Biological Evolutionists.

One thing they talked a little about on Darwin is his other book he wrote
on "Sexual Selection," which is more accurate than "natural selection"
with regards to evolution.

Anyway, watch the video, which is about 1 hour and 45 minutes, it's really
interesting. In fact, I think I may purchase their book. I at least have it on my
wish list at the public library as it's not available yet.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Darwin did distinguish between various human races, or “species of men,” and he believed that some were superior to others (1871, p. 395). Although he steered clear of these ideas in The Origin of Species, his second major work on evolutionary theory, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, did address the issue.

Darwin began the first chapter of The Descent of Man with these words: “He who wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals” (1871, p. 395). Later, in his chapter titled “On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man,” Darwin wrote:

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 civilised 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 (p. 521, emp. added).

Clearly, Darwin was convinced that the more “civilized races” (e.g., Caucasian) would one day exterminate the more “savage races,” which he considered to be less evolved (and thus more ape-like) than Caucasians. Darwin believed that “the Negro” and “Australian” are more of a sub-species, somewhere between Caucasians and apes. [NOTE: In addition to Darwin’s racist comments in The Descent of Man, he also included sexist statements. His evolutionary views led him to believe that “[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…. [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman…. [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman” (pp. 873-874).]

One of Darwin’s closest friends and defenders, the prominent, 19th-century English biologist Thomas Huxley, was even more direct in his evolutionary-based racist remarks. In his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White,” Huxley remarked:

It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant 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 prognathus 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 on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest (emp. added).

According to “Darwin’s Bulldog,” as Huxley was called, the “negro” is not equal to “the white man.” The alleged smaller-brained, big-jawed “Negro” supposedly cannot compete on the same playing field with the white man. Huxley espoused the false notion that “[t]he highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins” (1865, emp. added). Little did Huxley know that less then 150 years later an African-American would sit in the highest office of the most wealthy and powerful nation on Earth.

The fact is, Darwinian evolution implies that some groups of humans are closer to our alleged ape-like ancestors in their mental faculties than others. Thus, some groups of humans supposedly are superior to others.

The problem with Darwin's theory here is what Jared Diamond pointed toward
in Guns, Germs and Steel, is how people of the same cultures separated and
evolved while others did not. One example was a group in New Zealand who
evolved into a agriculture culture, while the people of the same group on an
island off the coast of New Zealand, remained hunter gatherers, but were eventually
taken over by the advanced agricultural society. The hunter gatherers never developed
as the agriculture people did despite being from the same group of people.

 

[chad kincham]

The problem with Darwin's theory here is what Jared Diamond pointed toward
in Guns, Germs and Steel, is how people of the same cultures separated and
evolved while others did not. One example was a group in New Zealand who
evolved into a agriculture culture, while the people of the same group on an
island off the coast of New Zealand, remained hunter gatherers, but were eventually
taken over by the advanced agricultural society. The hunter gatherers never developed
as the agriculture people did despite being from the same group of people.

But that’s not genetic evolution, that’s civilization evolution of different cultures.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

But that’s not genetic evolution, that’s civilization evolution of different cultures.

But then, does genetic evolution differ according to race or culture ?

 

[The Barbarian]

You hardly ever hear about Darwins second book, the descent of man, because in it Darwin exhibits the racism inherent in Darwinian gradualism, such as supposed sub- human species like the aborigines, and some other tribes, that he thought were inferior branches of humanity.

Darwin outraged people when he wrote in that book that if one transported "savages" to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen. Darwin, like most Europeans of his time, believed Europeans were better than other peoples, but unlike most of his fellows, he believed that all men were entitled to freedom and respect.

Today, you'd have a hard time finding a racist evolutionist, since evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. On the other hand into the 1990s, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research was blathering about the supposed spiritual and intellectual shortcomings of black people.

This is one of the salient differences between creationists and evolutionists. Not all of them, to be sure. Many, perhaps even most, creationists now reject the racist foundations of creationism. But the fact remains.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hitler and the Nazi ‘master race’ claims that sought to use eugenics and death camps to eliminate all ‘inferior races’ came straight from evolution and Darwinism.

Actually, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that the Nazi ideas of race and eugenics were scientifically insupportable, as well as morally objectionable. And that goes back to Darwin, who wrote that even allowing weak humans to die was an "overwhelming evil." (in The Descent of Man)

On the other hand creationists like ICR co-founder William Tinkle advocated eugenic ideas such as preventing "inferior" or "mentally deficient" people from reproducing. As noted above, these ideas had been debunked by Reginald Punnett, who showed even strict eugenic laws would take hundreds of years to have any effect at all.
Dr. West, meet Dr. Tinkle, Creationist eugenicist

To be fair, Dr. Tinkle was appalled when he learned of the Nazi attempt to apply his eugenic theories, but he never rejected his unfortunate belief in "improving the race."

Today, I would imagine few creationists would agree with eugenics, and have come to accept the Darwinian view of that foolishness.

 

[fred tacky]

Darwin believed Africans and Australian Aborigines and those with dark skin were closer, biologically, to gorillas/apes than those with lighter skin color.

The inference is that the closer you are to apes, the less intelligent you are. This assumption was just based on skin color, not character, not your accomplishments, not who you are as a person, etc. but just on skin color alone.

IMHO, this qualifies as racism in anyone's book.

 

[fred tacky]

Darwin wrote in his book, The Descent of Man:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... 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 (Aborigine) and the gorilla."

Comment: Despite his stand against slavery, Darwin's own words are full of contempt for "savage" people: That is, those of African or Aboriginal or other non-Caucasian ethnicities.

On the other hand, the Bible gives all humans from all ethnicities equal value in His eyes:

Genesis 1
In the Image of God did He make man. Male and female He made them.

 

[fred tacky]

University-level historians recognize Darwin's problematic racist views:

Richard Weikart, History professor at CSU said:

"Today's Darwinists are not Nazis and not all Darwinists agree with Dawkins, Wilson, Ruse, Singer, or Watson. However, some of the ideas being promoted today by prominent Darwinists in the name of Darwinism have an eerily similar ring to the ideologies that eroded respect for human life in the pre-Nazi era."

Darwin and the Nazis American Spectator April 16 2008

 

[fred tacky]

Stephen Jay Gould was an Harvard paleontologist and evolutionist and even he recognized Darwinism as a source of racist ideas:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

By Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 127.

 

[fred tacky]

The other problem with Darwin's racist views were that biologically superior beings were, by nature, rightful in their overtaking and conquering of those who were biologically inferior beings.

Here is what Kenneth J. Hsu had to say about this particular problem:

"We were victims of a cruel social ideology that assumes that competition among individuals, classes, nations or races is the natural condition of life, and that it is also natural for the superior to dispossess the inferior . . . . The law of natural selection is not, I will maintain, science. It is an ideology, and a wicked one. . ."

Kenneth J. Hsu, "Is Darwinism Science?" Earthwatch (March 1989)

Hsu is Earth Science Head at the Swiss Institute of Earth Sciences

On the other hand, the New Testament says we are all equal in God's eyes:

Acts 17: "And has made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth..."

 

[stevevw]

It's interesting how Richard Dawkins mentioned that he believes a racial human animal hierarchy exists within mankind from a biological perspective.
When this is the very same pseudo scientific ideology that was used in support of Nazi racial science called "scientific racism" according to the encyclopedia and peer reviewed articles on the subject of Darwinism and racism:

Wikipedia
Scientific racism
Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific. Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, race realism, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research.
Scientific racism was common during the period from the 1600s to the end of World War II. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.

Sage Journals
Peer reviewed article
Race, Racism, and Darwinism
William H. Jeynes
Abstract
This article examines the views of Darwinist evolution on issues regarding race and how this contributed to the spread of racism in the United States. The writings of Charles Darwin and a myriad of his followers are examined, including Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton, and others. The influence of Darwinism in contributing to the growth of institutional racism and the teaching of scientifically based racist thought is addressed. The article also examines how Darwinist evolutionary thought affected the nation’s beliefs about those with special needs and how this contributed to people’s perceptions about people of color. The author asserts that the blatant inaccuracies of Darwinist evolution regarding race raise questions about the theory’s overall veracity and how teachers should approach instruction regarding Darwin’s theory.

I think we see a form of biological racism still today in the form of colonialism and imperialism. How Indigenous people were dispossed of their lands and cultural practices and were forced to become like the dominant culture. Indigneous peoples and natives have always been seen as inferior and in need of improvement.

I also think we treat other species as being inferior. We underestimate them because of preconcieved ideas about their ability as agents and then treat animals like they are primarily non thinking organisms. This is seen in the many species being wiped out. This is a form of speciesism.

I think this exposes a problem for evolution in that it is difficult to explain agency behaviour biologically. Social and cultural behaviours that can direct evolution and yet are not genetically based. For example Aboriginals have a spiritual outlook on nature. We are only just discovering their knowledge of the world which has enabled them to live in harmony for over 60,000 years.

So one wonders who is perhaps the superior species. Yet Aboriginals seem to be able to look past all that despite the way they were treated by people who thought they knew better. The same people who I might say have caused much harm to the world in persuit of their so called superior way of knowing.

I think this is the big issue that evolutionary theory has to address so that it can accommodate a more holistic view of life.

 

[The Barbarian]

Darwin believed Africans and Australian Aborigines and those with dark skin were closer, biologically, to gorillas/apes than those with lighter skin color.

You were misled about that. Darwin outraged creationists in England by writing (In The Descent of Man) that if you took "Savages" and brought them to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen.

Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races and that racism is not only evil but ignorant. This is one of the primary differences between evolutionists and creationists.

 

[The Barbarian]

I think this exposes a problem for evolution in that it is difficult to explain agency behaviour biologically. Social and cultural behaviours that can direct evolution and yet are not genetically based.

There's a whole field of biology that studies and explains this. Would you like to learn about it?

For example Aboriginals have a spiritual outlook on nature.

So did Christians like St. Francis of Assisi. You don't understand. "Primitive" people are no less human or intelligent than "civilized" people. Evolution has shown that there are no biological human races. As Darwin pointed out, if you put primitive people in a modern society, they will quickly adapt and in a few generations be like everyone else in that society.

So one wonders who is perhaps the superior species.

"Superior" is not a concept in evolution. It's a racist notion, and as early Darwinists like Punnett demonstrated, a scientifically incorrect one.

And yet, as late as the 1990s, creationists like ICR founder Henry Morris was blathering nonsense about how blacks are intellectually and spiriturally inferior to other people. It's one of the big differences between evolution and creationism.