Racism and evolution

HELEN

This past weekend "The Monkey Trial" was shown on television. There is
a review of it here which adds a little more information to the Scopes
trial and what it involved:
http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/television/television-wiker021602.shtml


One of the arguments used by evolutionists is that Darwin was simply
going along with the culture of his day regarding racism. He may well
have been. But what about a biology text -- the one, in fact, at the
center of the controversy in the Scopes trial? Here from the above
website:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is an overlooked source of darkness at the trial that is
well worth bringing into the light, the very high-school biology
textbook at issue in the trial, George William Hunter's A Civic
Biology. Few have even heard of it. Even fewer have read it. I
happen to run across a copy, of all places, at a local thrift store.

Simply put, the textbook which John Scopes was using was offensively
racist and blatantly eugenic, and the racism and eugenics were both part
and parcel of Hunter's presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Hunter ranked the races according to how high each had reached on the
evolutionary scale. There are "five races or varieties of man…the
Ethiopian or Negro type…the Malay or brown race…the American Indian…the
Mongolian or yellow race…and finally, the highest type of all,
the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe
and America." [emphasis added] By implication, we can surmise who, for
Hunter, was on the bottom.

Well, now. I don't remember that in the movie. Nor have we been
made aware of Hunter's eugenic ruminations. "If the stock of
domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the
health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth
might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection."

For Hunter, not only genetic predispositions for diseases such as
tuberculosis and epilepsy are handed on by careless human breeding, but
also "feeble-mindedness" and "immorality." Since it would be "not only
unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity," weeding out the unfit is
part of good human husbandry. "The science of being well born is called
eugenics.

... Hunter then declared that "If such people were lower animals, we
would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity
will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes
in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage
and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race."

All this from the most famous, but unread book, the book John Scopes
used to teach biology, Hunter's A Civic Biology. This is what
Scopes was teaching his students down at Dayton. So much for the forces
of reason and light.

Now it might be objected that Hunter (and perhaps Scopes himself)
deviated from true evolution into pseudo-scientific racism and eugenic
rambling, and in doing so, ceased to be scientific.

That may be true, but he did not cease to be an evolutionist in full
accord with his master, Charles Darwin himself."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In other words, until political correctness came into power, racial
distinctions, and thus racisim itself, was considered part and parcel of
evolution.

This is not to say that evolution is responsible for racism. It was and
is not. Please don't mistake me. I know as well as anyone that racism
has its roots in earliest known humanity, whether one be creationist or
evolutionist. However the fact of the matter is that the Bible tears
down racism in both Old and New Testaments (presenting faithfulness to
God as the actual distinguishing characteristic among men), while
evolutionism actively supported it and was understood to support it by
its followers, including the writers of biology texts.

 

RUFUSATTICUS

Helen,

From the quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> racism and eugenics were both part and parcel of Hunter's
presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your quote is specifically referring to Hunter's version and not to the
field itself. I don't see how this quote is so damning for science. I
don't see how your post concerns the validity of evolution or creation.
Surely, you don't think that scientific validity is a matter of whether it
"feels good" or any sort of political or philosophical spin placed upon it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> However the fact of the matter is that the Bible tears down racism
in both Old and New Testaments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So then, would you say that your Baptist forefathers did not follow the
Bible? After all, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed to support the
subjugation of African slaves. I only ask since most Christians I know, who
would describe themselves as "Bible-believing," do not conduct themselves in
accord with your statement. If the Bible is so responsible for destroying
racism, why has it persisted for so long in this Christian dominated
culture? Why are religious conservatives like Pat Buchanan more likely to
be racist than anyone else in this country? It's no coincidence that racism
has steadily decreased since science has shown that all peoples share the
same blood. It's also no coincidence that scientifically literate are
clearly less racist than the scientifically illiterate. Evolutionary
biology has done more in 100 years to destroy racism than religion has done
in thousands of years. Here is a previous message from me on this topic:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You claim that evolutionary biology (EB) or "Darwinism," as you call
it, can be used to support racist ideas. What does this have to do with its
scientific validity? EB can also be used to show that there is no such thing
as a "superior" population. Every population has both negative and positive
features. They are locally adapted and the notion that one is universally
superior then the others can hardly be supported by available evidence.

Ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) has shown that most populations that
persist and grow do so not by killing of the competition, but by surviving
events that kill of the competition and expanding into the newly opened
habitats.

It has also shown that all humans are related, that no population is more
blessed by a creator than any other one, and that characteristics are not
the result of past curses.

On the surface, "Darwinism" can be used to support many philosophical
arguments because evolution is the unifying concept of biology that explains
the diversity of life. Though, in actuality, the evidence can only
support some of these philosophies and racism is not one of them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-RvFvS

 

JOHN BOY
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Helen:
In other words, until political correctness came into power, racial
distinctions, and thus racisim itself, was considered part and parcel of
evolution.

This is not to say that evolution is responsible for racism. It was and is
not. Please don't mistake me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your left hand doesn't seem to know what your right one is typing, Helen.
Why is your post titled "Racism and Evolution", as well as the extensive
quoting trying to connect those dots, if you did not wish to draw such a
link?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I know as well as anyone that racism has its roots in earliest known
humanity, whether one be creationist or evolutionist. However the fact of
the matter is that the Bible tears down racism in both Old and New
Testaments (presenting faithfulness to God as the actual distinguishing
characteristic among men), while evolutionism actively supported it and was
understood to support it by its followers, including the writers of biology
texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helen, the Bible was used quite, um, liberally as a defense and
justification of slavery. Read the writings of John C. Calhoun sometime and
see the explicit lines he draws between slavery and God's design that blacks
are inferior so they can better serve whites. Calhoun even goes on to argue
that slavery is a "positive good" for blacks (again, with many a Biblical
and Natural Law justification for his arguments).

Helen, racism was the NORM at the time you are referring back to (and well
before). At that time, people (mis)used BOTH science and religion to shore
up their bigotted views. Today, people use BOTH science and religion to
fight against racism.

You may want to read Stephen J. Gould's Mismeasure of Man, which does
an excellent job of summing up some of the more major abuses of science,
from racism, to eugenics, to the total bastardization of the IQ test.

Take care.

 

RADIOCHEMIST

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Helen: "In other words, until political correctness came into power,
racial distinctions, and thus racism itself, was considered part and
parcel of evolution." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Helen, I can't let you get away with such a blatant distortion of
history. I don't doubt that an occasional evolutionist may have
been racially prejudiced, but it is downright false to imply that
racism was more frequently found among evolutionists than in other
parts of society. In fact, I think that the reverse is true, that
those parts of the country that were most racist were also least
likely to accept evolution. Helen, I grew up in the south and it
is well known that until at least the late 1960s, the bulk of the
southern white population was racially prejudiced
and also against evolution. It was not uncommon to hear southern
politicians rail against evolution and integration in the same
speech! You really ought to think twice before accusing scientists
of being racially prejudiced, because your own denomination failed
to take any positive action, years ago, in the long struggle for
equal rights.
I know that the situation is somewhat different now, but you seem to
have forgotten, if you ever knew, the extent of racism in the
virtually all of the churches. I am not talking about the 1860s
either, but about the time up until 1970. Only when federal law
forced the south to at least give lip service to equal rights,
did the southern states actually do so. And there were a great
deal of turmoil in the very regions where Baptist churches were
the strongest. In particular, these were the regions where
fundamentalist ideas were the strongest.

That should be no surprise to though, since conservatism by its
very nature is resistant to change. Religion in general and the
Baptist churches in particular did not cover themselves with
glory in the long struggle for civil rights for blacks. In fact
it was the Federal government and the courts, that were the
major factors behind the change. Usually fundamentalist religions
resisted those changes. It seems that the Southern Baptists
split off from other Baptists over the issue of slavery, with
the Southern Baptists supporting slavery. Here is a quote from
an Internet source on that:

"When the question of slavery became a dividing wall, the Southern
Baptist Convention was established (1845)."

The source of the above quote is:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/printable/01101.html


Whatever Darwin's views on race, I don't think you can show
that he supported slavery and in fact, I have read quotes
to the effect that he was against it.

 

[Administrator: We would like to request that an entire post is not a quote of someone else's work, as is the post that follows. Please add your own comments or simply use quotes to support your comments. Thank you.]

SCOTT PAGE

From Morris's The Beginning of the World (1991), pp. 147-148:

“The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.

The Hamites have been the great 'servants' of mankind in the following ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans, cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types of structural forms and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce and trade--money, banks, postal systems, etc.--were invented by them; (8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, movable type, and other accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people. Truly they have been the 'servants' of mankind in a most amazing way.
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. 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. “

Morris concludes that this is not racist by invoking a strange definition of racism. Somehow, if other human beings are responsible for the plight of a group of people, that is racism; however, if someone (such as Morris) believes that a general line of people (such as the Hamites) are "possessed of a genetic character" that makes them innately less "intellectual," "philosophical," and "religious" than the other approximately two thirds of humanity, this is not racism.


*from “Is the ICR's Henry Morris racist?” By Richard Trott

 

JESTERHOLE

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is not to say that evolution is responsible for racism. It was
and
is not. Please don't mistake me. I know as well as anyone that racism
has its roots in earliest known humanity, whether one be creationist or
evolutionist. However the fact of the matter is that the Bible tears
down racism in both Old and New Testaments (presenting faithfulness to
God as the actual distinguishing characteristic among men), while
evolutionism actively supported it and was understood to support it by
its followers, including the writers of biology texts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The bible is full of Slavery. God mentions not making your slave work on
the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments. He even offers up instructions on
how to properly sell your daughter into slavery, and that if you kill
your slave slowly, instead of all at once, well then that's OK too
because he is paid for with your money.


This is not to say that the bible is responsible for slavery. Please
don't mistake me. Slavery has it's roots in earliest known humanity,
whether one be evolutionist or creationist. However the fact of that
matter is that tToE tears down slavery by letting us know that all
humans are the same animal, and that none of us is above one another,
nor set above one another by some god, while the Bible actively supports
it and was used by supporters of slavery for hundreds of years.


Oh, and doesn't the bible also talk about how woman should keep quiet
and listen and respect the man and all that? So while it tears down
racisms, it supports sexism?

 

POIKILOTHERM

However the fact of the matter is that the Bible tears
down racism in both Old and New Testaments (presenting faithfulness to
God as the actual distinguishing characteristic among men), while
evolutionism actively supported it and was understood to support it by
its followers, including the writers of biology texts.


Right. But the Bible was not always interpreted as tearing down
racism and bigotry, else why would Martin Luther be such a bigot? Morever,
the death of racism as a scientific idea predates "political correctness" by
some years (please note: science textbooks in the twenties were as out of
date in their era as modern textbooks are in ours): the work of Franz Boaz
and American physical anthropology did that by the 1930's, even before
modern population genetics in the 1970's, or the advent of "political
correctness" in the late 70's and early 80's. You see, it was science, not
the Bible, that did away with evolutionary justifications for racism. The
fact that racist thugs hung on to such notions and did such evil with
evolutionary justifications is no surprise: the same thugs did great evil
with Luther too. The lesson is not that evolutionary theory is somehow
flawed because at one point it was used to support evil. The lesson is that
evil people will do evil things, and can use even the Bible to forward them.

 

THE BARBARIAN

It might be noted that Darwin and Lincoln (who BTW, were born on the same
date) had similar views on race. Neither man thought that other races were
the equal of whites, but both thought that all men deserved the dignity of
freedom and the right to the fruits of their own labors.

Each was thought to be excessively liberal. For the time, they were. We
would justifiably consider such views to be immoral today, primarily because
we have learned that they are false. Although religion has been twisted by
some churches in America to serve racism, and science has been twisted by
some to serve it also, neither Christianity nor evolutionary theory is in
any way related to racism.

I don't know any prominent evolutionists who are racists in the sense of
thinking that other races are genetically inferior. I doubt that the
majority of creationists agree with Morris on this issue.

[ March 01, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

LATE CRETACEOUS

Helen,
Your assertation that there is some correlation between evolution and racism
is a "strawman" aguement. In fact, I would like to point out that the the
minds that spawned evolutionary theory were uncommonly liberal (non-racist)
for thier time.


Here are a few passages written by the hand of Charles Darwin.

"I was crossing a ferry with a negro, who was uncommonly ******. In
endeavouring to make him understand, I talked loud, and made signs, in doing
which I passed my hand near his face. He, I suppose, thought I was in a
passion, and was going to strike him; for instantly, with a frightened look
and half-shut eyes, he dropped his hands. I shall never forget my feelings
of surprise, disgust, and shame, at seeing a great powerful man afraid even
to ward off a blow, directed, as he thought, at his face. The man had been
trained to a degradation lower than the slavery of the most helpless
animal."


"It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves
with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the
laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this
bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumbscrew by
defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some
dreadful disease."

"On the 19th of August [1836] we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank
God, I shall never again visit a slave-country."

"He [Fitzroy] defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me
that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his
slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be
free, and all answered 'No.' I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether
he thought that the answers of slaves, in the presence of their master was
worth anything. This made him excessively angry ... I thought that I should
have been compelled to leave the ship ... But after a few hours Fitz-Roy
showed his usual magnanimity ... with an apology and a request that I would
continue to live with him."

note: Fitroy (captain of the Beagle) never accepted Darwin's theory of
evolution, yet he defended slavery.

"The extent to which the trade is carried on; the ferocity with which it is
defended; the respectable (!) people who are concerned in it are far from
being exaggerated at home."

"[slaves] are ranked by the polished savages in England as hardly their
brethren, even in God's eyes."

Here is a poem written by Wallace (co-founder of evolutionary theory) in
1851.

There is an Indian village; all around,
The dark, eternal, boundless forest spreads
Its varied foliage.

Here I dwelt a while, the one white man
Among perhaps two hundred living souls.

Each day some labour calls them. Now they go
To fell the forest's pride, or in canoe
With hook, and spear, and arrow, to catch fish;

A palm-tree's spreading leaves supply a thatch
Impervious to the winter's storms and rain.

The women dig the mandiocca root,
And with much labour make of it their bread.

And all each morn and eve wash in the stream,
And sport like mermaids in the sparkling wave.

The children of small growth are naked, and
The boys and men wear but a narrow cloth.
How I delight to see those naked boys!
Their well-form'd limbs, their bright, smooth, red-brown skin,
And every motion full of grace and health;
And as they run, and race, and shout, and leap,
Or swim and dive beneath the rapid stream,

I pity English boys; their active limbs
Cramp'd and confined in tightly-fitting clothes;

But how much more I pity English maids,
Their waist, and chest, and bosom all confined
By that vile torturing instrument called stays!

I'd be an Indian here, and live content
To fish, and hunt, and paddle my canoe,

And see my children grow, like young wild fawns,
In health of body and in peace of mind,
Rich without wealth, and happy without gold!

Written by Alfred Wallace in the village of Javita in 1851

 

HELEN
Well that got you guys riled up!
A few points:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Rufus Atticus: Your quote is specifically referring to Hunter's
version and not to the field itself. I don't see how this quote is so
damning for science. I don't see how your post concerns the validity of
evolution or creation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not only was this book written by someone accepted as an authority, it
was the text approved to be used in schools. This means it was what was
believed enough to ask that the children be taught it. Racism and
eugenics were such a part of evolution for awhile that there was a
bounty on the heads of certain “inferior” races, such as the Australian
aborigines. Whether or not it was simply a matter of ‘going along with
the times,’ racism was incorporated into Darwin’s evolution from the
beginning and was taught as part of it for some time thereafter, as this
textbook shows.

Nor did I say that the Bible is ‘responsible for destroying racism.’
That is obviously untrue. However it is true that the Bible speaks
against racism from the beginning. This is VERY different from Darwin’s
books.

As far as how different people feel about races, that is not what I am
concerned with. Racism was TAUGHT in an evolutionary context in the
primary books dealing with evolution from the beginning. Racism is not
taught in the Bible, regardless of how some groups tried to warp what
the Bible said.

Many of you brought up slavery. Slavery and racism are entirely
different issues. Blacks have enslaved other blacks, whites have
enslaved other whites, etc. etc. Racism may lead to slavery in some
cultures, but not in all, and they are two different issues. Racism
itself involves thinking of one color of people as better than another
color.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> RufusAtticus: It's no coincidence that racism has steadily
decreased since science has shown that all peoples share the same
blood.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That astounds me that any educated person could say that. First of all,
the concept of one blood is entirely Biblical: first from Adam and Eve
and then from Noah and his wife. Secondly, evolution’s racist point had
nothing to do with blood types but with evolutionary development, in
which it was considered by even very educated men (like the ones who
wrote textbooks) that there were groups of humans who were ‘less
developed’ than others. Almost always (I think always, but giving
myself some hedge room there… ) the most advanced were the ones who had
lost the most melanin, which always cracked me up, but that’s the way it
was. It was no accident that early illustrations of evolution pictured
the black man coming directly from ape-like ancestors while the white
man was the final result. To say that evolution decreased racism goes
EXACTLY against the facts of history.

It was Christians like the Quakers who were primarily involved in
helping free the blacks from slavery here in the United States. A
history of the Underground Railroad will help people to see this. I am
not arguing that there were not a good many people who tried to use the
Bible to support enslaving the blacks, but again, they had to ignore
some pretty significant passages and twist around others to do it!

But again, slavery is a different issue, although it was closely
connected to racism many places.

And, again, it does not matter WHAT “the evidence” known today supports
– the fact is that racism was given a giant boost by Darwin and that
evolutionary ideas were used to support racism for probably close to a
hundred years.


To John Boy: I am not arguing that racism did not exist or that the
Bible was not distorted to try to support it before the time of Darwin.
What I am saying is that Darwin and evolutionists for a long time after
USED evolution to actively support and encourage racism. A
straightforward reading of Darwin will show that, as does the text the
article quoted. However a straightforward reading of the Bible will
show that when Moses married a black woman, his sister’s hand was turned
leprous by the Lord for her criticisms. Solomon, in Song of Solomon,
seems to be taking a dark-skinned woman as wife. In the New Testament
Paul says specifically that any concept of race or culture is totally
erased in Christ. No matter what people DO with Darwin’s and other
evolutionists’ writings of his day, and no matter what people DO with
the Bible, simple reading makes it very clear that the evolution side
supports and encourages racism while the Biblical side does not.


To Radiochemist:
I don’t know if racism was “more frequently found among evolutionists
than in other parts of society.” I did not claim that. What I did say
was that evolution ideas supported racism, and they did. I did not say
that people could not be against evolution and integration at the same
time. They were – and maybe a number still are! I don’t know. None of
that was part of what I was presenting, though. I was showing that
evolution supported racism and taught it. Whether or not any given
scientist fell for that garbage, I am in no position to say, so you
don’t need to defend scientists. I am talking about the written
material dealing with evolution, regardless of who wrote it. It
supported and encouraged racism and that led to some pretty nasty
things.

And if Darwin was opposed to slavery, great. But that is not what we
are talking about. He was very racist and incorporated that into his
ideas concerning evolution. These ideas and the attached racism were
carried along in articles, actions, and texts for many years after.


To Scott Page and others referring to Dr. Morris’ work: I disagree with
some of what Dr. Morris has said. Dark skinned peoples can be found in
all three trunk lines coming off the Ark. However the fact that the
Bible did prophecy that one group in particular would be servants of
others is, first of all, a prophecy, not a racist comment. Secondly,
servanthood is elevated to the highest level in the New Testament when
Christ declared that HE came as a servant, and not as one to be served,
and that if we were to be His followers, we must also follow that
example.
The fact that the prophecy concerning some people came true, as do all
God’s prophecies, is actually neither here nor there. It has nothing to
do with one group of people being lesser in God’s eyes, only with what
they could expect in the future generations.


To Jesterhole: I am not discussing slavery, but racism. As mentioned
above, these are two different issues.

To Poikilotherm: I agree with you. Yes, science did help do away with
the evolutionary justifications for racism. But the fact remains that
there was that evolutionary justification that had to be done away with
in the first place.

To Pat Parson:
No, Pat, Darwin and Lincoln did NOT have similar views on race.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa082800a.htm

The man who is known as “The Great Emancipator” was the first
President to sign a bill which brought African-American diplomats to
Washington for the first time. This was when he established diplomatic
ties with Haiti and Liberia. http://www.flagday.org/livingAmerianFlag/Lessons/Lincoln_bio.html


This rings as just a little different from Darwin, who was counting on
the idea that the blacks, as inferiors, would soon be wiped out by
natural selection! How this is compatible with thinking “all men
deserved the dignity of freedom and the right to the fruits of their
own labors” truly escapes me.

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

THE BARBARIAN

Lincoln's statement on race (Lincoln/Douglas Debates):

He also said, during those debates: "I am not in favor of Negro
citizenship", and said he would oppose such a move in Illinois.

Darwin, as you might know, had a major falling-out with the captain of the
Beagle, over whether slavery was justified or not. Darwin believed, like
Lincoln, that other races were inferior (almost all people of European
descent did at the time) but they both believed that all men were entitled
to their freedom and the fruits of their own labor.

Obviously, we have learned a good deal about humans since Lincoln and
Darwin. Because we know better, we are appalled by such opinions today. We
cannot reasonably judge men outside of the times in which they lived, and
the knowledge available at the time.

[ March 01, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

RADIOCHEMIST

Helen: "In other words, until political correctness came into power,
racial distinctions, and thus racisim itself, was considered part
and parcel of evolution."

You omit something that is very important and that is
any mention of the prevailing attitudes of society in general
at that time. Some have quoted Darwin's views on race in response
to your comments. It is quite easy to see that he was at least
not any more racist than the average member of his generation and
I think a fair evalution of his views would show that he was somewhat
more generous to other races than most people of his time. What
you seem to be implying is that racist ideas were an important
part of the theory of evolution. That is simply not true and
in fact it can be shown that evolutionists were not any more racist
than society in general. So it is a mystery to me why you keep
peddling this idea which you cannot support.

 

RUFUSATTICUS

Helen,
Your arguments involving racism, evolution, and the Bible are contradictory.
You acknowledge that both evolution and the Bible have been used to support
racism. However, you think that racism reflects badly on evolution but
doesn't matter with respect to the Bible. You can't have it both ways;
racism either reflects badly on both of them or neither.

Yes I know this. I also know that further studies done by evolutionists,
not creationists, showed that there is no such thing as an "inferior" race.

Likewise, racism is not taught in an evolutionary context regardless of how
some groups tried to warp what the field said.

My argument is not that humans are equal because they share a common
ancestor. By that I could say that bacteria and humans are equal too. My
argument is that human populations share the same "blood" (present
tense). The bible only indicates that we shared the same blood (past
tense). In many places it indicates that some peoples are less than others,
such as concerning the descendents of Ham or the belief that Jews are the
chosen people. In other words, the Bible does not rule out the belief that
the descendents of Adam and Eve, although initially equal, are no longer so.
Evolutionary biology, on the other hand has studied human diversity. It has
shown that over 80% of human diversity is found between individuals within
populations and less than 20% of genetic diversity is found between
populations. This indicates a high degree of gene migration and genetic
uniformity across humanity. Thus the evolutionist camp, not creationists,
has shown that racism is a bankrupt philosophical position.

Of course it is no accident. White populations are descended from Africans
who more than likely had black skin and other traits still found in Africans
today. I don't see how this cries racism.

Would those be the same type of facts that show that Georgia Washington
wasn't the first president of our country or that the Holocaust didn't
happen?

Yet you consider this more damaging than the 3000+ years that the Bible and
related religions have been used to support racism. I don't follow. I also
don't see the giant boost that Darwin gave to racism. Instead of people
being inferior by divine will, they could be considered inferior by nature's
action. I think that racists are more comforted by the former than the
latter.

-RvFvS

 

HELEN
To Patrick:
The Lincoln-Douglass Debate was in 1858. I think you will find that
with the passing years Lincoln became more and more understanding of the
true humanity of the blacks. The same cannot be said for Darwin.

So while they both grew up in a climate of racism, they did seem to go
in opposite directions with it.

To Radiochemist:
I think you have missed most of what I have been trying to point out. I
did not say that Darwin was different from his culture in this respect.
What I was trying to show was that he incorporated that racist
philosophy into the warp and woof of his theory of evolution, as his
later writings clearly showed. Because of this, racism was continued
even more strongly in circles where his writings were esteemed, and it
was considered then that there was a scientific backing for racist
philosophies.

I cannot see where he was ‘somewhat more generous’ when he postulated
their extinction at the hands of the “superior” whites.

 

DAVID PLAISTED

I don't know if this is relevant but the German word "Entwicklung"
which means "development" or "evolution" appears many times in Mein
Kampf. Also one or more of the developers of Marxism were led to
abandon their belief in God by the theory of evolution -- I can try
to chase down the refs for this if anyone wishes.
Dave Plaisted

 

JESTERHOLE

I don't see how this adds to the debate at all. This neither proves nor
disproves evolution or creation. It looks to me like you are just trying
to drag evolution and Darwin through the mud. What is the purpose in
posting this opinion, other than to cast a nasty light on Darwin? Where
is this saying evolution is wrong or creation is right?

 

THE BARBARIAN

Helen: To Barbarian:
The Lincoln-Douglass Debate was in 1858. I think you will find that
with the passing years Lincoln became more and more understanding of the
true humanity of the blacks. The same cannot be said for Darwin.

No, that's wrong. If you had ever read Darwin's commments on the treatment
of blacks blacks he had encountered, you would not believe so. Not only
did Darwin differ with the creationist captain of the Beagle on this point,
he mentions events that convince him that mistreatement of other races is
wrong. He expresses concern and compassion for those of other races
mistreated by Europeans.

Helen:
So while they both grew up in a climate of racism, they did seem to go in
opposite directions with it.

No, that's wrong, too. Lincoln, for example, never retracted his earlier
statements about the necessity of blacks being inferior to whites and
without voting rights and citizenship. Indeed, during the Civil war, he
observed that he would agree to leaving blacks without rights, if that would
thereby save the Union.

Helen: To Radiochemist:
What I was trying to show was that he incorporated that racist
philosophy into the warp and woof of his theory of evolution, as his
later writings clearly showed.

In fact, at least one Christian denomination in the US was founded to
support the premise that God wanted blacks to be inferior to whites. It was
in the very warp and woof of their religion.

As science began to demonstrate that there are no biological races,
scientists quickly eschewed racism. Unfortuanately, some religions don't
move that fast. Bob Jones U. was officially racist last time I checked. It
was for this shameful behavior that the SBC (to their credit, I might add)
officially repented and apologized for their support of segregation and
other mistreatement of blacks.

Helen:
Because of this, racism was continued even more strongly in circles where
his writings were esteemed, and it was considered then that there was a
scientific backing for racist philosophies.

I doubt if Darwin was all that popular with those religious denominations.
We have to go back a hundred and fifty years to find a prominent
evolutionist who thinks blacks are inferior. How far back to a prominent
creationist?

Helen:
I cannot see where he was "somewhat more generous" when he postulated
their extinction at the hands of the "superior" whites.

You have to remember that scientists don't necessarily believe what they
wish to be true. Darwin simply went with the current scientific opinion of
the time. It was also the opinion of American and European society in
general at the time. To its credit, science was able to show that
biological races were a myth, and put an end to the argument for all
rational people. It took a little longer in some parts of the US.

 

EXCREATIONIST

About racism in the Bible:

In Genesis 9:20-27, Ham saw his father, Noah, drunk and naked. Instead of
covering his nakedness, he told his brothers. So Noah cursed Ham's son,
Canaan, and his descendants. The descendants of Canaan are listed in Genesis
10:15-19.

Then this is what became of the descendants:

Deuteronomy 7:1-7,14-18,20-24:
When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to
possess and drives out before you many nations - the Hittites, Girgashites,
Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations
larger and stronger than you -and when the Lord your God has delivered them
over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.
Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with
them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for
your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve
other gods, and the Lord 's anger will burn against you and will quickly
destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars,
smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols
in the fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your
God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his
people, his treasured possession.
The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were
more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples....
....You will be blessed more than any other people; none of your men or
women will be childless, nor any of your livestock without young. The Lord
will keep you free from every disease. He will not inflict on you the
horrible diseases you knew in Egypt, but he will inflict them on all who
hate you. You must destroy all the peoples the Lord your God gives over to
you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that
will be a snare to you.
You may say to yourselves, "These nations are stronger than we are. How can
we drive them out?" But do not be afraid of them; remember well what the
Lord your God did to Pharaoh and to all Egypt....Moreover, the Lord your God
will send the hornet among them until even the survivors who hide from you
have perished. Do not be terrified by them, for the Lord your God, who is
among you, is a great and awesome God. The Lord your God will drive out
those nations before you, little by little. You will not be allowed to
eliminate them all at once, or the wild animals will multiply around you.
But the Lord your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into
great confusion until they are destroyed. He will give their kings into your
hand, and you will wipe out their names from under heaven. No one will be
able to stand up against you; you will destroy them.

Also,
Deuteronomy 20:10-18:
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace.
If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject
to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and
they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God
delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the
women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may
take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord
your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the
cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations
nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an
inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy
them - the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and
Jebusites - as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will
teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their
gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.

It sounds like racism to me... Canaan's descendents were cursed because of
Ham... God was planning to get revenge. It did turn out that Canaanites
worshipped the wrong gods but I wonder whether God knew that would happen
when Canaan was cursed. The second passage also talks about God commanding
his people to take slaves.

Helen wrote:

I don't know how literally Quakers take the Bible....

http://www.afsc.org/qic/qcontent/quakeris.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/quaker.htm

Also, about the impact of Christianity on the abolitionist movement: (from
Encarta)
http://encarta.msn.com/find/concise.asp?mod=1&ti=761570452&page=1#s3

For more information about slavery and the Bible, see this thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=0004
58&p=1

[ March 01, 2002, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

RADIOCHEMIST

Helen: "I cannot see where he was ‘somewhat more generous’ when he
postulated their extinction at the hands of the “superior” whites."

Helen,

I think Darwin was simply stated the facts as he saw them and was
talking about the superior technology of Europeans that was
driving the various aborigines to extinction. He does not have to
be racist to recognize reality. I think even you would agree that
since Darwin's time, many native groups have disappeared, not through
any lack of intelligence but merely because they could not compete
with the superior weaponry and technology of Europeans. I could point
out dozens of racial groups that have either totally disappeared or
have been greatly reduced in number because of contact with Americans
and Europeans. Does recognizing this fact of history mark one
as a racist? I don't think so. Darwin was correct in his prediction,
and if you disagree, provide some evidence as to where he was wrong.

Also, I think Darwin recognized that native races
were just as intelligent as Europeans. I bet you cannot find any
quote from him that makes a general statement that natives are
any less intelligent than Europeans. I think you misunderstand
Darwin's view of race and are mistaken in claiming that it was
an important part of evolution. Rather than Darwin's views on
race being different from Lincoln's, it seems to me that their
views were quite similar and did not diverge, as you claim.

Of course this issue has little to do with evolution, but it
fits into your need to claim that evolution is an evil theory.

 

SCOTT PAGE

David wrote:

I don't know if this is relevant but the German word "Entwicklung" which means "development" or "evolution" appears many times in Mein Kampf. Also one or more of the developers of Marxism were led to abandon their belief in God by the theory of evolution -- I can try to chase down the refs for this if anyone wishes.

Is it "development" OR "evolution"?

Of course, Hitler also wrote in Mein Kampf about how he felt God had put him on a mission and all that.

In addition, the ceremonial daggers of the SS officer contained two inscriptions - on one side, they said "Blood and Honor" (I forget the German words for that), and the other?

"Gott mit uns." (God is with us)

Is there some significance to that?