Was Darwin Racist and Homophobic at the Same Time?

[Guy Threepwood]

Even if that were true, it would leave Victorian era Darwinism a handful of epochs ahead of bronze age creationism now wouldn't it?

Creationism, intelligent design, in stark contrast is vindicated by the fossil record, mathematics and genetics as they stand in the 21st century- it has no need to create endless artistic impressions and excuses in lieu of evidence that in 150 years, never materialized as predicted.

 

[Simurgh]

What could possibly vindicate creationism and intelligent design? Evolution is shown to be scientifically sound by the fossil record, but the other two are just an outgrowth of a religious mindset that tries desperately to give itself some semblance of legitimacy.

 

[Jose Fly]

These types of threads are what you get when the creationists in your midst have run out of ammo and have nothing productive to add. All they can muster is mud-slinging.

Whenever I see a creationist resort to this level of argumentation, I usually ask them to complete the following sentence: "Darwin was a racist, therefore ______________"

I can't recall an instance where any creationist responded.

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationism, intelligent design, in stark contrast is vindicated by the fossil record, mathematics and genetics as they stand in the 21st century- it has no need to create endless artistic impressions and excuses in lieu of evidence that in 150 years, never materialized as predicted.

The moon is made of cheese.

There. We've both shown that we're able to post empty assertions.

 

[Simurgh]

These types of threads are what you get when the creationists in your midst have run out of ammo and have nothing productive to add. All they can muster is mud-slinging.

Whenever I see a creationist resort to this level of argumentation, I usually ask them to complete the following sentence: "Darwin was a racist, therefore ______________"

I can't recall an instance where any creationist responded.

You are too generous. They're only shooting blanks anyhow. So why argue, let's just have a bit of fun, watch the heads spin and take a spot of tea like civilized people.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

The copy I have on my desk right now is very old, but not first edition, and does not use that language in the title. But reading a lot of his work, inc. Voyage of the Beagle- yes, he clearly sees fundamental distinctions between people of the world- that go far beyond appearance, and relate to their level of civilization rather than other factors,- Again we cannot condemn him on this, and assume that we would think any differently in that day and age- but it's difficult to insist that this did not account for any part of it's popularity and adoption into received wisdom. Piltdown man of course was a logical extension.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are too generous.

Kinda have to be in moderated religious forum.

They're only shooting blanks anyhow. So why argue, let's just have a bit of fun, watch the heads spin and take a spot of tea like civilized people.

Yup. That's pretty much the approach I take to these places. After all, it's not like anything that goes on here is ever going to be of any scientific consequence anyways. Some day it'll all be deleted and never thought of again.

 

[Simurgh]

That's why you talk to scientists about important stuff, and come for fun and games to places like this. Like I said, watch the heads spin and have a nice cup of tea, with or without spirits to help you along.
Sometimes you just need to not take things that seriously.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

I'd say he went further, he explicitly introduced a method for remotely reconstructing past events, with the principle that they should be explained by currently observable phenomena..

Today the crux of the question lies squarely in the authoring if the genetic code, digitally programmed information systems, underwriting all basic body plans, arising before evolutionary mechanisms themselves.

We only know of one currently observable phenomena that can account for this, and you are using another of it's creations right now; creative intelligence.

I agree with Darwin on this, do you?

 

[Jose Fly]

We only know of one currently observable phenomena that can account for this

Yes, chemistry. Or are you arguing that there's something else besides chemistry going on in the genetics of living things? If so, then you should identify it.

 

[SomeRandom]

This is ridiculous. Have you read Darwin at all?

Umm yeah. I did take Biology in High School so it was sort of required reading. Granted that was a while ago, so perhaps I should refresh my memory.
I still have no idea where you pulled all this slander against him from. Like yeah he probably was homophobic (ahem like most Churches to this day are ahem) and probably a racist like practically everyone who lived at such a time. The hell does that have to do with evolution? Modern understanding or otherwise? And you know Darwin isn't like a Scientific equivalent of a God, right? No one cares if he wasn't right 100% of the time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is patently silly. Informed scientific opinion is all but universally behind Darwin's theory and it has gathered an entire new line of evidence (genetics) to support it.

Mr pop-science is not nearly as large in person as he looks on TV!

 

[ratiocinator]

Mr pop-science is not nearly as large in person as he looks on TV!

Nothing to do with pop-science. I'm referring to the vast majority of working scientists in the relevant fields.

 

[james bond]

So, let me wrap up this thread before replying.

What we have here ladies and gentlemen is the essence of EVOLUTION by Darwin. What he did was propose scientific RACISM and implied HOMOPHOBIA and made it acceptable for the masses. He even packaged it and called it EVOLUTION. It's no wonder his book became the best selling book in Science and Biology. Just read the whole title of the book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." The evolution (atheist?) scientists like Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton took it and were responsible for Social Darwinism and Eugenics. Eugenics was opposed by the Catholic Church ("state enforce sterilisations") and people like C.K. Chesterton.

"The concept of positive eugenics to produce better human beings has existed at least since Plato suggested selective mating to produce a guardian class.[12] The idea of negative eugenics to decrease the birth of inferior human beings has existed at least since William Goodell (1829-1894) advocated the castration and spaying of the insane.[13][14]



G. K. Chesterton, an opponent of eugenics, in 1905, by photographer Alvin Langdon Coburn

The idea of a modern project of improving the human population through a statistical understanding of heredity used to encourage good breeding was originally developed by Francis Galton and, initially, was closely linked to Darwinism and his theory of natural selection.[15] Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. Based on his biographical studies, Galton believed that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits, though Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory.[16] In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name: eugenics.[17] With the introduction of genetics, eugenics relied on an ideology of genetic determinism in which human character was due to genes, unaffected by education or living conditions. Many of the early geneticists were not Darwinians, and evolution theory was not needed for eugenics policies based on genetic determinism.[15] Throughout its recent history, eugenics has remained controversial.[18]
...

Politically, the movement advocated measures such as sterilization laws.[30] In its moral dimension, eugenics rejected the doctrine that all human beings are born equal and redefined moral worth purely in terms of genetic fitness.[31] Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure "Nordic race" or "Aryan" genetic pool and the eventual elimination of "unfit" races.[32][33]

Early critics of the philosophy of eugenics included the American sociologist Lester Frank Ward,[34] the English writer G. K. Chesterton, the German-American anthropologist Franz Boas,[35] and Scottish tuberculosis pioneer and author Halliday Sutherland. Ward's 1913 article "Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics", Chesterton's 1917 book Eugenics and Other Evils, and Boas' 1916 article "Eugenics" (published in The Scientific Monthly) were all harshly critical of the rapidly growing movement. Sutherland identified eugenists as a major obstacle to the eradication and cure of tuberculosis in his 1917 address "Consumption: Its Cause and Cure",[36] and criticism of eugenists and Neo-Malthusians in his 1921 book Birth Control led to a writ for libel from the eugenist Marie Stopes. Several biologists were also antagonistic to the eugenics movement, including Lancelot Hogben.[37] Other biologists such as J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher expressed skepticism in the belief that sterilization of "defectives" would lead to the disappearance of undesirable genetic traits.[38]

Among institutions, the Catholic Church was an opponent of state-enforced sterilizations.[39] Attempts by the Eugenics Education Society to persuade the British government to legalize voluntary sterilization were opposed by Catholics and by the Labour Party.[page needed] The American Eugenics Society initially gained some Catholic supporters, but Catholic support declined following the 1930 papal encyclical Casti connubii.[20] In this, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned sterilization laws: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason."[40]"

Eugenics - Wikipedia

Of course, it became more extreme with Social Darwinsim and Hitler and the rest is history.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, let me wrap up this thread before replying.

What we have here ladies and gentlemen is the essence of EVOLUTION by Darwin. What he did was propose scientific RACISM and implied HOMOPHOBIA and made it acceptable for the masses. He even packaged it and called it EVOLUTION. It's no wonder his book became the best selling book in Science and Biology. Just read the whole title of the book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." The evolution (atheist?) scientists like Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton took it and were responsible for Social Darwinism and Eugenics. Eugenics was opposed by the Catholic Church ("state enforce sterilisations") and people like C.K. Chesterton.

"The concept of positive eugenics to produce better human beings has existed at least since Plato suggested selective mating to produce a guardian class.[12] The idea of negative eugenics to decrease the birth of inferior human beings has existed at least since William Goodell (1829-1894) advocated the castration and spaying of the insane.[13][14]



G. K. Chesterton, an opponent of eugenics, in 1905, by photographer Alvin Langdon Coburn

The idea of a modern project of improving the human population through a statistical understanding of heredity used to encourage good breeding was originally developed by Francis Galton and, initially, was closely linked to Darwinism and his theory of natural selection.[15] Galton had read his half-cousin Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which sought to explain the development of plant and animal species, and desired to apply it to humans. Based on his biographical studies, Galton believed that desirable human qualities were hereditary traits, though Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory.[16] In 1883, one year after Darwin's death, Galton gave his research a name: eugenics.[17] With the introduction of genetics, eugenics relied on an ideology of genetic determinism in which human character was due to genes, unaffected by education or living conditions. Many of the early geneticists were not Darwinians, and evolution theory was not needed for eugenics policies based on genetic determinism.[15] Throughout its recent history, eugenics has remained controversial.[18]
...

Politically, the movement advocated measures such as sterilization laws.[30] In its moral dimension, eugenics rejected the doctrine that all human beings are born equal and redefined moral worth purely in terms of genetic fitness.[31] Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure "Nordic race" or "Aryan" genetic pool and the eventual elimination of "unfit" races.[32][33]

Early critics of the philosophy of eugenics included the American sociologist Lester Frank Ward,[34] the English writer G. K. Chesterton, the German-American anthropologist Franz Boas,[35] and Scottish tuberculosis pioneer and author Halliday Sutherland. Ward's 1913 article "Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics", Chesterton's 1917 book Eugenics and Other Evils, and Boas' 1916 article "Eugenics" (published in The Scientific Monthly) were all harshly critical of the rapidly growing movement. Sutherland identified eugenists as a major obstacle to the eradication and cure of tuberculosis in his 1917 address "Consumption: Its Cause and Cure",[36] and criticism of eugenists and Neo-Malthusians in his 1921 book Birth Control led to a writ for libel from the eugenist Marie Stopes. Several biologists were also antagonistic to the eugenics movement, including Lancelot Hogben.[37] Other biologists such as J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher expressed skepticism in the belief that sterilization of "defectives" would lead to the disappearance of undesirable genetic traits.[38]

Among institutions, the Catholic Church was an opponent of state-enforced sterilizations.[39] Attempts by the Eugenics Education Society to persuade the British government to legalize voluntary sterilization were opposed by Catholics and by the Labour Party.[page needed] The American Eugenics Society initially gained some Catholic supporters, but Catholic support declined following the 1930 papal encyclical Casti connubii.[20] In this, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned sterilization laws: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason."[40]"

Eugenics - Wikipedia

Of course, it became more extreme with Social Darwinsim and Hitler and the rest is history.

Thank you for your blatant equivocation and the distortion of Darwin's theory. Try again next time.

 

[ratiocinator]

What we have here ladies and gentlemen is the essence of EVOLUTION by Darwin. What he did was propose scientific RACISM and implied HOMOPHOBIA and made it acceptable for the masses. He even packaged it and called it EVOLUTION. It's no wonder his book became the best selling book in Science and Biology. Just read the whole title of the book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

The theory of evolution is a description of what happens in nature. Such a description cannot possibly, of itself, be racist or homophobic.

Also, On the Origin of Species hardly mentions humans and the term 'races' is used in the same way as 'variety' is today. Darwin refers to races of cabbages.

This has to be, by a very, very, very long way, the most ridiculous objection to evolution I have ever seen in my entire life...

 

[james bond]

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.

As usual, Sapiens, you have missed the ball. Took a big swing and whiffed. This is about survival of the "fittest." In an unrelated topic on Game Theory and Nash Equilibrium, you and one other poster asked what do I mean by "fittest." It wasn't my term, but I remembered it from Darwin's writings. It's attributed to Herbert Spencer, who is another evolutionist (atheist?) scientist, who ended up promoting Social Darwinism.

"The theory was used to support laissez-faire capitalism and political conservatism. Class stratification was justified on the basis of “natural” inequalities among individuals, for the control of property was said to be a correlate of superior and inherent moral attributes such as industriousness, temperance, and frugality. Attempts to reform society through state intervention or other means would, therefore, interfere with natural processes; unrestricted competition and defense of the status quo were in accord with biological selection. The poor were the “unfit” and should not be aided; in the struggle for existence, wealth was a sign of success. At the societal level, social Darwinism was used as a philosophical rationalization for imperialist, colonialist, and racist policies, sustaining belief in Anglo-Saxon or Aryan cultural and biological superiority."

social Darwinism

Homosexuality wasn't even discussed in these Victorian times, but whispered. Would you say that they were included as part of the "fittest?" Of course not.

""Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase, after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones: "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

Darwin responded positively to Alfred Russel Wallace's suggestion of using Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as an alternative to "natural selection", and adopted the phrase in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication published in 1868.[1][2] In On the Origin of Species, he introduced the phrase in the fifth edition published in 1869,[3][4] intending it to mean "better designed for an immediate, local environment".[5][6]"

Survival of the fittest - Wikipedia

 

[james bond]

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

More like fact of evolutionary racism.

 

[ratiocinator]

Homosexuality wasn't even discussed in these Victorian times, but whispered. Would you say that they were included as part of the "fittest?" Of course not.

The 'fittest' in the sense of evolution is simply a statement of what is. Your problem (if indeed, you have only one) is confusing this with a moral or value judgement; a statement of what ought to be or what is better or superior.

Saying that having more offspring will lead to a higher chance of having more descendants in some number of generations' time, is a raw fact. One that says nothing about the desirability or correctness of the outcome.

Anybody who cites "survival of the fittest" as a reason to say that "the fittest" are better or superior is guilty of the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[Simurgh]

ok, JB doesn't like evolution and thinks by calling darwin a product of his time, he can condemn evolutionary theory as well. then he lists some other unrelated stuff in order to attack the people who were nothing else but reflections or their time and place too so he can act as if that had any relevance in regard to a scientific theory. What about Tesla and his racism/eugenics? why not bring that up and then go after musk for naming his company after the man? then again, musk is a racist apparently.

is JB that desperate to discredit evolution, which is after all a sound theory with plenty of evidence to support its premises, that he does his best to mine wikipedia for anecdotal talking points to give his rants some legitimacy? or is he just a reflection of the trump era where alternative facts are bandied about as if they made reality any less real?