Was Darwin Racist and Homophobic at the Same Time?

[David M]

Most of us know that Darwin was racist in his attitude and behavior. The worst is his claim that humans descended from chimpanzee-like-apes. The blacks, especially those in Africa disavow this theory and claim it is racist.

In what way is that claim racist? All humans ulimately evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees, its a fact. All humans are the same species.

Was Darwin racist, well yes he was. He lived in a society that was much more overtly racist than today's. However Darwin was aguably less racist than the norm. He certainly was a strong opponent of slavery.

"Long before post-Darwinian “scientific racism” begins to develop, then, one can find blacks being depicted as closer to apes on the Great Chain of Being. Take mid-19th century America in circles in which polygenesis (separate origins for the races) was taken seriously. Leading scientists of the day Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, in their 1854 Types of Mankind, documented what they saw as objective racial hierarchies with illustrations comparing blacks to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

Comparing Black People to Monkeys has a Long, Dark Simian History | The Huffington Post

The misuse of good science by others is not the fault of the scientist. Such racism was firmly established before Darwin and this was a case of science being co-opted by people to support existing beliefs.

However, what's not so widely know is Darwin's "survival of the fittest." Darwin and evolutionists claim this the driving force behind natural selection. Here's what it says in Brittanica about the term:
"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations. For example, a woman who rears six healthy offspring has greater fitness than one who rears just two."

This has to do with how a fit male and female are able to pass on their genes. The fittest being the most to procreate. What about LGBTs? Can they pass on their genes? They may be able to, but if they're 100% same-sex then they can't. This seems to allude that Darwin was homophobic. He knew this just about as well as anybody during his time. Imagine that. Science backs the fittest humans as those who can procreate.

Darwin did not coin the term survival of the fittest. Nothing there points to Darwin being homophobic, he probably was because society was at the time.

Can same sex couples not raise children that they haven't given birth to? Are LGBT people completely incapable of producing offspring?

Your quote from Britannica is a gross simplification. Social species show many examples where not all members have offspring and yet are successful. In simplistic terms you don't have to pass on the genes yourself if you assist in those genes being passed on by close kin and that does provide a reproductive advantage.

 

[David M]

The whole point of this post is we have to understand the roots of evolution. It is science run amok in order to promote the ideas of racial inequality and how LGBT cannot pass along their genes. Isn't this what the fascists are saying? Just look at the ideas and behavior of scientists before, during and after Darwin. It's silly to think it was only the "other" white scientists and not Darwin. Not only these ideas of evolution archaic, but simply not true. We had Lucy the chimp from Ethiopia try and make a grand tour around the world. People would not buy it. I think this is one of the reasons why. If an evolutionist went to Africa to promote these ideas today, then I would think a riot would break out and the safety of this individual would be compromised.

This is compleet garbage. The science of evolutionary biology destroys racism by the simple fact that humans are a single species with miniscule differences between populations (once you exclude the purely cosmetic).

Evolution is a fact. Its misuse does not stop that being true.

 

[Augustus]

It isn't just science that has improved and become more sophisticated since Darwin's time. Modern ethics have as well.

Pointing out Darwin's primitive ethics is like pointing out his reliance on sail power to do his research instead of first inventing faster ships. It just isn't relevant to what he did.

His morals are a bit of a red herring.

Darwin's view wasn't based on his ethics, it was a product of his science. Science is supposed to be objective and value neutral and it is unscientific to fudge your findings based on their moral implications.

In general though I hate when people use 21st C morals to judge the behavior/reputation of historical figures so I agree on that.

Pointing out Darwin's primitive ethics is like pointing out his reliance on sail power to do his research instead of first inventing faster ships. It just isn't relevant to what he did.

I wasn't pointing out his primitive ethics, I was pointing out the state of evolutionary science which was relevant to what he did.

Even then it shouldn't impact his reputation or the TOE any more than not being entirely correct should damage Newton's reputation.

 

[james bond]

Darwinism is a mirror reflection of Victorian age perceptions of reality in every form of course. But I don't think those perceptions were necessarily 'bad' or 'racist' or 'scientifically illiterate' - in the context of that time and it's limited scientific knowledge.

If Darwin knew what we knew now, I am quite sure he would be as skeptical of evolution as most people today, by his own stated standards. He was a pretty smart and curious guy after all, with an admirable preference for independent scientific method over academic pop-science. It's just that those two are reversed in their conclusion today.

Darwin's book became a best-seller of its time. It's still the #1 science book in Biology and Natural History. People call it the "Origin of Species," but it's full title is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." He uses the term "favoured races." His book does not talk about it directly, but other scientists such as Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, concluded it does and it led to Social Darwinism and what fascists like Hitler deemed those to be inferior and eliminate. In fact, Galton's idea of eugenics was linked to Hitler through his correspondence with Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist. I think the title itself led to people buying it up. Where his racism becomes clear is his follow up book, "The Descent of Man."

Darwin, Evolution, and Racism

http://anthropology.ua.edu/bindon/ant270/lectures/Race2.pdf

"Social Darwinism follows the mantra of "the strong survive," including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them."

What is Social Darwinism

 

[columbus]

ven then it shouldn't impact his reputation or the TOE any more than not being entirely correct should damage Newton's reputation.

I must not have been clear, I intended to explain why I agree with you.

In all honesty, I consider one of Darwin's biggest contributions to be his method.
He identified a falsifiable hypothesis. He gathered a large collection of rigorously documented evidence. Then published his results AND the evidence itself for inspection and critique and elaboration. He may not have invented the scientific method, but he certainly brought it to public attention in a big way.
Tom

 

[David M]

Darwin's book became a best-seller of its time. It's still the #1 science book in Biology and Natural History. People call it the "Origin of Species," but it's full title is "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." He uses the term "favoured races."

And when he write Origin the term race was synonymous with both species and sub-species. He wrote about races of cabbages. So simply more ad hominem attacks based on sophistry.

 

[Sapiens]

Most of us know that Darwin was racist in his attitude and behavior. The worst is his claim that humans descended from chimpanzee-like-apes. The blacks, especially those in Africa disavow this theory and claim it is racist.

"Long before post-Darwinian “scientific racism” begins to develop, then, one can find blacks being depicted as closer to apes on the Great Chain of Being. Take mid-19th century America in circles in which polygenesis (separate origins for the races) was taken seriously. Leading scientists of the day Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, in their 1854 Types of Mankind, documented what they saw as objective racial hierarchies with illustrations comparing blacks to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

Comparing Black People to Monkeys has a Long, Dark Simian History | The Huffington Post

However, what's not so widely know is Darwin's "survival of the fittest." Darwin and evolutionists claim this the driving force behind natural selection. Here's what it says in Brittanica about the term:
"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations. For example, a woman who rears six healthy offspring has greater fitness than one who rears just two."

This has to do with how a fit male and female are able to pass on their genes. The fittest being the most to procreate. What about LGBTs? Can they pass on their genes? They may be able to, but if they're 100% same-sex then they can't. This seems to allude that Darwin was homophobic. He knew this just about as well as anybody during his time. Imagine that. Science backs the fittest humans as those who can procreate.

You might consider checking the science prior to running your ratchet.

This longstanding question of: "why haven’t gay man genes driven themselves extinct?" appears to be answered. Andrea Camperio Ciani at the University of Padova in Italy has shown that mothers and maternal aunts of gay men tend to have more offspring than the maternal relatives of straight men. This strongly supports "balancing selection,” which appears to be the genetic basis of male homosexuality.

The same genes that are the base for male homosexuality promotes fecundity in females. The “gay gene,” thus increases Darwinian fitness in females even though it reduces it in homosexual males. This is amplified by the fact that male's energetic contribution to reproduction is slight, most of the male contribution is to hunting and defense, so the fitness of the offspring of females who posses homosexual sibling is raised above that of the offspring of females who do not have homosexual sibling by the contribution of the homosexual sibling(s) to the family economy.

So, the "Darwinian" analysis of homosexuality is hardly homophobic unless it is conducted in an overly simplistic and unrealistic fashion.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Nothing fallacious about it.

I just explained the exact fallacious argument you used, how it works and what it has been named.

Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

 

[columbus]

This longstanding question of: "why haven’t gay man genes driven themselves extinct?" appears to be answered.

I am really glad somebody had specifics about this. I knew about it, but but didn't remember any details.

Another point is well illustrated by my partner. He is very gay, but has four reproductively successful offspring. Because all a dude needs for reproductive success, in terms of sex, can be accomplished in a week. Then he might never have fertile sex again, but if he helps raise the kids he has done all that can be expected from a guy.
Tom

 

[Rational Agnostic]

He who laughs last, laughs best.

I'm laughing because this has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to discuss evolution, then discuss evolution. Even if your claims about Darwin are true it has no bearing on his discoveries. The fact that you are making a thread attacking the person who discovered how evolution/natural selection works rather than directly addressing the issue tells me that you have no reasonable argument to make against Darwin's claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

His morals are a bit of a red herring.

Darwin's view wasn't based on his ethics, it was a product of his science. Science is supposed to be objective and value neutral and it is unscientific to fudge your findings based on their moral implications.

In general though I hate when people use 21st C morals to judge the behavior/reputation of historical figures so I agree on that.



I wasn't pointing out his primitive ethics, I was pointing out the state of evolutionary science which was relevant to what he did.

Even then it shouldn't impact his reputation or the TOE any more than not being entirely correct should damage Newton's reputation.

I've heard the argument before that if scientific principle doesn't support one's moral
views, then this invalidates the principle. This error lies in the belief that one's morality
is inerrant fact, leading to irreconcilable differences....which we're seeing here.

 

[james bond]

I'm laughing because this has nothing to do with evolution. If you want to discuss evolution, then discuss evolution. Even if your claims about Darwin are true it has no bearing on his discoveries. The fact that you are making a thread attacking the person who discovered how evolution/natural selection works rather than directly addressing the issue tells me that you have no reasonable argument to make against Darwin's claims.

You're in denial. I'm using solid reference, scientific articles and news links that show fascists and the Nazis took his ideas and turned them into the eradication of "lower class" races. There is a direct link between Darwin's cousin and the Nazi biologist. Second, a science book would not become a best seller unless the title says "favoured races." If you read Darwin's follow up book "Descent of Man," then it would prove Darwin's racism. Darwin claims Caucasians are better than blacks and aboriginal Australians. He usurps Spencer's "survival of the fittest" terrm, especially the "fittest" part, which eliminates the 100% same-sex people today. Fittest, according to Darwin, means the ability to procreate the most. Not the strongest, faster, most durable, etc. Physically, 100% same-sex cannot procreate.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You're in denial. I'm using solid reference, scientific articles and news links that show fascists and the Nazis took his ideas and turned them into the eradication of "lower class" races. There is a direct link between Darwin's cousin and the Nazi biologist. Second, a science book would not become a best seller unless the title says "favoured races." If you read Darwin's follow up book "Descent of Man," then it would prove Darwin's racism. Darwin claims Caucasians are better than blacks and aboriginal Australians. He usurps Spencer's "survival of the fittest" terrm, especially the "fittest" part, which eliminates the 100% same-sex people today. Fittest, according to Darwin, means the ability to procreate the most. Not the strongest, faster, most durable, etc. Physically, 100% same-sex cannot procreate.

As I said before, even if your claims are correct, they have absolutely no bearing on the fact of evolution.

 

[Sapiens]

... Fittest, according to Darwin, means the ability to procreate the most. Not the strongest, faster, most durable, etc. Physically, 100% same-sex cannot procreate.

No, fitness is defined as contribution to the gene-pool of succeeding generations, its more a vector in an n-dimensional hyperspace (niche) than a simple scalar of the number of offspring (e.g., if you have lots of offspring, but they are all sterile, your fitness is zero). Thinking of fitness as nothing more than the number of offspring is a common and inaccurate simplistic approach.

As I pointed out earlier, a 100% same-sex preference on the part of a sibling still may rather strongly increase the fitness of your line.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You do not know anything about science but what the internet atheists told you.

Silly james who apparently thinks magical pixies runs his computer claims that I don't know anything about science. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[columbus]

As I pointed out earlier, a 100% same-sex preference on the part of a sibling still may rather strongly increase the fitness of your line.

Not to mention the fact that 100% same sex attraction may only be an artifact of living in a homophobic society. Such societies try to make you choose an option for judgment purposes, as opposed to just doing what comes naturally to an individual.
Tom

 

[Sapiens]

Not to mention the fact that 100% same sex attraction may only be an artifact of living in a homophobic society. Such societies try to make you choose an option for judgment purposes, as opposed to just doing what comes naturally to an individual.
Tom

Indeed, 100 percenters often received special status in non-Abrahamic cultures.

 

[columbus]

Indeed, 100 percenters often received special status in non-Abrahamic cultures.

They are also such a tiny percent of the population they aren't going to alter the dynamics much. And it's impossible to say whether they existed at all until a few thousand years ago. Evolution doesn't work that fast.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Ironically, my partner started having sex while in single digit age. A Methodist minister popped his cherry at 9.
He got married and started popping out babies in an effort to "straighten" himself out. There may well not be any carriers of his "gay" gene if he'd been left to his own nature. And I honestly think that proving their manhood has a lot to do with why his sons have reproduced so fecundly.
Tom

 

[Sapiens]

Ironically, my partner started having sex while in single digit age. A Methodist minister popped his cherry at 9.
He got married and started popping out babies in an effort to "straighten" himself out. There may well not be any carriers of his "gay" gene if he'd been left to his own nature. And I honestly think that proving their manhood has a lot to do with why his sons have reproduced so fecundly.
Tom

While that is an interesting anecdote, it has little bearing on the fixation of the "gay" gene in the population. What is at issue is that in a natural population, a non-reproductive individual's excess capacity that would normally be channeled to its offspring, will instead serve to enhance the fitness of other members of its family group and their offspring thereby selecting for higher fecundity genotypes in "straight" close relatives, especially siblings, and nephews, nieces.