• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Darwin Racist and Homophobic at the Same Time?

Sapiens

Polymathematician
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
That has nothing to do with either what Darwin was talking about or what the term means today.
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.
Directly? No. That is a modern discussion that arose out of game theory inquiries into altruism. But it is directly related to the technical definition of maximizing average fitness. "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" which is reflected today as "fitness" (often denoted w in population genetics models) is the quantitative representation of natural and sexual selection within evolutionary biology. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype. The fitness of a genotype is manifested through its phenotype, which is also affected by the developmental environment. The fitness of a given phenotype can also be different in different selective environments.(thanks wiki).
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
I see no problem with either Darwin's construct or Wallace's. You are hung up on what later individuals (now long discredited) attempted to warp it into. Do you also blame the truck designer and manufacturer when a terrorist drives said truck into a crowd?
 

David M

Well-Known Member
I see no problem with either Darwin's construct or Wallace's. You are hung up on what later individuals (now long discredited) attempted to warp it into. Do you also blame the truck designer and anufacturer when a terrorist drives said truck into a crowd?

More importantly does he blame modern Christianity for its virulent homophobia and blatant racism in the past (e.g. the Curse of Ham)?
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
That has nothing to do with either what Darwin was talking about or what the term means today.
Directly? No. That is a modern discussion that arose out of game theory inquiries into altruism. But it is directly related to the technical definition of maximizing average fitness. "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" which is reflected today as "fitness" (often denoted w in population genetics models) is the quantitative representation of natural and sexual selection within evolutionary biology. It can be defined either with respect to a genotype or to a phenotype in a given environment. In either case, it describes individual reproductive success and is equal to the average contribution to the gene pool of the next generation that is made by individuals of the specified genotype or phenotype. The fitness of a genotype is manifested through its phenotype, which is also affected by the developmental environment. The fitness of a given phenotype can also be different in different selective environments.(thanks wiki).

I see no problem with either Darwin's construct or Wallace's. You are hung up on what later individuals (now long discredited) attempted to warp it into. Do you also blame the truck designer and manufacturer when a terrorist drives said truck into a crowd?

Your first sentence is your problem. You are taking what you know today and trying to apply it to the past. At least, the poster who claimed Victorian values as what influenced Darwin's racism was taking the values from England into consideration. However, what Darwin did was bring science and biology into it to condone racism. I pointed out his The Descent of Man. "Darwin demonstrated how he believed evolution shaped man in his subsequent book The Descent of Man. In it, he theorized that man, having evolved from apes, had continued evolving as various races, with some races more developed than others. Darwin classified his own white race as more advanced than those “lower organisms” such as pygmies, and he called different people groups “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.”"

Did Darwin Promote Racism?

Game theory wasn't about altruism, but selfishness. It's the one thing humans can't overcome. Another poster mentioned love and I agree, but true love needs honesty and trust to be able to communicate what the other will do when faced with the negative choices in the Prisoner's Dilemma. Now, you're explaining it to me using today's terms which you failed to do in the other forum/thread. However, that is not how Darwin presented it in his The Descent of Man which makes it abundantly clear.

In terrorist terms, we're talking about someone who wrote the book on driving said truck into a crowd. It's true that Darwin wasn't the first to propose biological arguments for racism, but atheist scientist Stephen Jay Gould admits, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory” (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977)."
 

Simurgh

Atheist Triple Goddess
More importantly does he blame modern Christianity for its virulent homophobia and blatant racism in the past (e.g. the Curse of Ham)?

both, you and Sapiens waste your energy trying to show JB the error of his way. he obviously just hates the idea of evolution and because he cannot attack it as being wrong or badly documented, he attacks some dead white dudes. he is just scared having to admit that he is not a special snowflake especially created by his little god to dominate nature and/or anyone else for that matter. i also suspect he is a homophobic racist on a long trip trying to find self-justification and affirmation. he just indulges in a spot of confirmation bias.
so, let him argue his non-point and have some of my catnip. it's the good stuff.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Sapiens, the way I found the racism is because you questioned me what was meant by "fittest." I thought it unusual to refer to the ones who are able to procreate and procreate the most as the fittest with plants and animals as well as humans. That seems like something that the religious right would agree to in regards to sex. What Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man confirmed my thinking and theories of why he titled his Origins book that way. I didn't think it was suspicious before. However, now we know the truth.

There's that saying, "The rich get richer. The poor get pregnant." It seems the opposite of Social Darwinism. Eugenics? Forced sterilizations? What kind of idiot was Herbert Spencer anyway? Survival of the fittest indeed! C'mon the Catholics and C.K. Chesterson ended up making it their duty to fight such ideas. Google eugenics.
 
Last edited:

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
"When Darwin was eighteen he recorded his acquaintances with a black man in the UK, whom he had spent time with. His notes were later published in his autobiography.

By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man.
- Charles Darwin; The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887
The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Darwin classified his own white race as more advanced than those “lower organisms” such as pygmies, and he called different people groups “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.”"
And the white racist Christian slave owners didn't? Were they all evolutionists then?
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
The theory of evolution is a description of what happens in nature.

we agree here, as a round of cheese was a convenient description for the moon in the same age.

Such a description cannot possibly, of itself, be racist or homophobic.

As a subjective description based on everyday human experience, those biases are inescapable I'm afraid.

the science of life itself, makes no such distinction of inherently 'fitter' and 'weaker' races based on superficial observations, we are all God's children


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...

Have you read it, and Darwin's other books?
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
"When Darwin was eighteen he recorded his acquaintances with a black man in the UK, whom he had spent time with. His notes were later published in his autobiography.

By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton, and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently: he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man.
- Charles Darwin; The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887
The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist

Meh. Not credible. In the Apologetics Press link I posted, one of the writer's talks about the so-called "mis-portrayals" in a debate he had. His opponent was lying. There is a systematic attempt by liberals to efface Darwin's racism.

From Darwin's The Descent of Man:
"Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.

“The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”

“The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white races….Those who believe in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used.”

[From Denyse: Decades ago, I distinguished myself by an ability to smell sugar in coffee. It wasn’t very difficult, with a bit of practice, and it helped to sort out the office coffee orders handily. My best guess is that most people could learn the art if they wanted to. Most human beings don’t even try to develop their sense of smell – we are mostly occupied with avoiding distressing smells or eliminating or else covering them up. I don’t of course, say that we humans would ever have the sense of smell of a wolf, but only that Darwin’s idea here is basically wrong and best explained by racism. ]

“It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only two separate fangs. … In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the Caucasian races.

“It is an interesting fact that ancient races, in this and several other cases, more frequently present structures which resemble those of the lower animals than do the modern. One chief cause seems to be that the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like progenitors.”

Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism | Uncommon Descent
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Meh. Not credible. In the Apologetics Press link I posted, one of the writer's talks about the so-called "mis-portrayals" in a debate he had. His opponent was lying. There is a systematic attempt by liberals to efface Darwin's racism.
I see. It was Darwin who inspired the Christian racist slave traders? Their racism started with him? Here is an interesting article:
GODS RACE BIAS
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
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?
It's desperation from a group of people who have nothing else.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
I see. It was Darwin who inspired the Christian racist slave traders? Their racism started with him? Here is an interesting article:
GODS RACE BIAS

I didn't say racism started with Darwin, but he brought the "wrong" belief that natural selection was driven by a quality to be better and survive. This led to a false scientific belief that one race is better than another and he accepted that. It didn't even reach a theory stage and went straight to belief. No question his racism was in his follow up book. What other reason for his titling his Origin of Species book as such? It was to intrigue people to buy his book. He became a very rich man after that best selling book. And people didn't buy the book to find out why finches have different beaks.

If you have an axe to grind with Christian slave traders, then start a thread on it.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
So apparently the argument here is "Darwin was a racist homophobe, therefore populations don't evolve".

I guess that sort of "logic" only works in creationist land.
 

Simurgh

Atheist Triple Goddess
So apparently the argument here is "Darwin was a racist homophobe, therefore populations don't evolve".

I guess that sort of "logic" only works in creationist land.

how do you connect "logic" with creationism? isn't that stuff all about believing the fantastic just on faith? dealing with that kind of logic puts me in the catnip patch--want some?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
This led to a false scientific belief that one race is better than another and he accepted that. It didn't even reach a theory stage and went straight to belief.
The world was more religious in the 19th century. That wouldn't much happen in our secular society.
Praise Jesus!
Tom
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
So apparently the argument here is "Darwin was a racist homophobe, therefore populations don't evolve".

I guess that sort of "logic" only works in creationist land.

The logic is Darwin was wrong about a lot of things in his writings. Creationists are right in that he was a racist and I think he was a homophobe, too. I'll have a separate thread on Eugenics and Planned Parenthood. It's too ugly to start here. I'm starting to think Darwin became famous due to the racist theories and not due to biology.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
The world was more religious in the 19th century. That wouldn't much happen in our secular society.
Praise Jesus!
Tom

I'm not sure if it was more religious compared to today. It changed in the 19th century to be more atheist due to Charles Lyell and his prized pupil Charles Darwin.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
Creationists are right in that he was a racist and I think he was a homophobe, too. I'm starting to think Darwin became famous due to the racist theories and not due to biology.
Perhaps they'd have had more truck with evolution if Darwin had had a gay relationship with a black man? Better still if he'd been a gay black man. I'm having visions of Johnny Mathis as the black Charles Darwin now...Origin of species - the musical - this comes to pass, when a child is born...Ah ah ah ah, ah ah ah ah ah...:musicnotes::musicnotes:
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
how do you connect "logic" with creationism?
There's a reason I put quotation marks around "logic".

isn't that stuff all about believing the fantastic just on faith? dealing with that kind of logic puts me in the catnip patch--want some?
Yep, it certainly is about faith. As far as the catnip, well......as long as you're sharing.......:cool:
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
The logic is Dawkins was wrong about a lot of things in his writings.
That's you idea of logic?

I don't think I can say much else to that that wouldn't get me banned. Suffice to say, whatever respect I ever had for you is pretty much gone.
 
Top