You just have to read what Darwin actually said, as Michael Flannery quotes, while dealing with a typical attempt to sanitize Darwin’s record.
Austin Anderson: Now I understand why I’ve never been asked in a biology class to read the original text of Darwin’s theories: Our contemporary reverence for Darwin’s gentlemanliness and the pure scientific brilliance of his theories is an overly optimistic illusion that shatters upon a closer look at his publications.
But let biologist and science writer David Bainbridge tell it, riffing off his new book, How Zoologists Organize Things: The Art of Classification…
Essentially, Noah Carl is forcing the biology establishment to admit that they can’t impugn Darwin for his racism because he’s their religion. All those other guys can just be trashed. But not Darwin. Not for anything.
Some of us remember fifteen years ago when anyone who brought up Darwin’s racism was informed, superciliously, by Darwinists that only a creationist would raise such an issue, as if there were nothing to be appalled by. One is tempted to say, suck it up. But that’s not a solution.
Yes, it’s real: And if this is being “mainstreamed” at Sandia National Labs, it’s going to be all but pervasive in Government and in the sort of corporations that typically get government contracts. Across today, DV, I intend to put up screen shots from his presentation, as points to ponder. As a start, clip 1: Read More…
It works well when dealing with Darwinists, too, he thinks.
David Klinghoffer: The truth is that placing a man in the Monkey House was intended as an education for the public in Darwinian evolution. As John West has said, Ota Benga was “only one of thousands of indigenous peoples who were put on display in America in the name of Darwinian evolution.”
Cargill: Judging by a representative sample of textbooks, America’s high-school students get little exposure to the history of eugenics and scientific racism. One reason might be that the relationship of these movements to Progressivism is too close for comfort.
Much as this stupid culture-wrecking is deplorable, the fact is, many of us have tried to talk about Darwin’s racism for many years, only to be rebuffed by sneery Darwinists who claimed – in total defiance of facts – that it ain’t so because Darwin… opposed slavery!
Carl admits that “Up until now, Darwin has been considered something of a hero on the political left… In short, all that dynamite (Darwin’s racism) was lying around, just waiting for someone to find it and make an issue of it—but the Darwinians didn’t want to deal with it themselves in case doing so complicated their culture war? Oh my.
And starts to acknowledge some harsh realities that most Darwinists drown in a word salad of obfuscation.
In our current cultural climate, it is very difficult to have a useful discussion of the contribution Darwinism made to modern racism, as evidenced by racist yammer today featuring “natural selection.” To recap, Darwinism made racism “scientific.” That was much easier to sell to the educated classes in the nineteenth century than the idea that some people’s papa was a god and the rest of us were just bricks. And many committed and devoted Darwinists believed in and co-operated with the new, “scientific” racism. Until all that can be fully and freely acknowledged, the matter can never be laid to rest.
John Zmirak asks Woke students.
What a good idea! Instead of getting shouted down by Darwinians, anxious to impose the “red in tooth and claw” on school curricula, perhaps we should long ago have adopted the practice of simply providing editions of Darwin’s works, detailing the worldview that lies behind this stuff. Accept or reject it, the worldview goes along with the package.