A challenge to “evolutionary biologists”

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 10, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I put this in the combox below another post, but decided to put it on the front page, for reasons of social responsibility.

I think that “evolutionary biology” is the basket-weaving course of science – but basket weaving keeps some people from crime and drug addiction, after all – so who am I to say it isn’t worthing?.When are “evolutionary biologists” going to get around to admitting Darwin’s racism and its consequences?

Here is what I wrote to one self-righteous commenter:

When a world association of evolutionary biologists formally acknowledges that “The Descent of Man” is one long racist tract and *disassociates* its members from Darwin’s actual views, I will be impressed.

Otherwise not. And lots of other people will not be impressed either.

In the meantime, attacks on anyone’s character are entirely beside the point.

There is a huge, open, running, rotting Stage 4 sore here – visible to the whole world – that “evolutionary biologists” seem in no hurry to deal with.

It is NO use telling me that no one agrees with Darwin if science associations are not prepared to make a formal statement about his actual views and disassociate themselves from them.

I would have thought that the Darwin year was the exact right time to do just exactly that – especially if it is true that so few biologists are racists, as you say*.

To me, the fact that it never occurred to them to do so is highly significant – given the world we live in.

*I don’t say anything one way or the other about all that except this: I ask for a general retraction of Darwin’s views on race and you can be very sure that I will know what to make of any failure to do so. And it is no use quoting high panjandrums against me.

You can be sure you will be hearing from me again – and again – on this. So why not just deal with it?

Comments

CannuckianYankee
This country would never have repudiated racism and slavery or eugenics without those standards.
My understanding is that it could have gone either way. After all, the Southern Baptist Convention was established in Augusta, Georgia, in order to preserve a religious foundation for human slavery. Wikipedia notes:
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) is a United States-based, mostly conservative[1] Christian denomination. The name "Southern" stems from its having been founded and rooted in the Southern United States. The SBC became a separate denomination in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, following a regional split with northern Baptists over the issue of slavery. It has become the world's largest Baptist denomination and America's largest Protestant body with over 16 million members and more than 42,000 churches.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention So, not all agreed on what your "standards" meant.George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

Interesting debate. I think the point made by Borne #3 and #9 is right on. Mind if I ad my $0.03? Christianity is all inclusive. That some Christians have not lived up to this is a tragic fact of history. However, Christianity cannot be blamed for the actions of some of its adherents when their actions go against the very teachings of scripture, but Darwinism can be blamed for the actions of some of its adherents, when in fact they were simply following the beliefs of Darwin himself. Those organizations mentioned by Allan_MacNeill changed their positions based on the teachings of scripture, and they repented their practices. This is because Christian standard demands it. The point being made here, and I think it is an excellent one, is that Darwinism does not demand such standards. But Darwinism does not survive in a vacuum - if it did, then the results would be even more tragic than Mr. MacNeill's examples. So I respect you pointing those out Mr. MacNeill, but the fact remains that the end result of Darwinism is checked by a moral society, and that moral society does not get its standards from Darwinism, rather, from Judeo-Christian teachings. If we did not have a society built on laws that protect human life as were the conditions in Nazi Germany, the end result would be a holocaust of some sort. Now the fact that some (in fact many) Darwinists repudiate the racism and eugenics of the past is a good thing. I (we all, in fact)should applaud this. But the fact remains that the standards put forth by Darwin do not mandate this; rather it is the Judeo-Christian moral standards of our society that mandate this. This country would never have repudiated racism and slavery or eugenics without those standards. Now I should also mention that anti-semitism in Europe did not begin with the Nazis. It existed for centuries before, and I doubt if it was Darwinism that gave rise to Nazi anti-semitism and racism. However, the Nazis used Darwinist ideas to justify their anti-human practices.CannuckianYankee_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT}

We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority. ~ Stephen Jay Gould Racism is inconsistent with Christian doctrine, but it does appear to fit quite nicely with evolutionism.bevets_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

Harville, It not racism or eugenics you should be concerned with.Upright BiPed_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Borne, By all means you and other IDists should continue to blather on about racism, eugenics, Nazism, etc. You'll only succeed in further marginalizing yourselves.B L Harville_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill:
That would require critical thinking on Borne’s part.
Indeed, something I suggest you attempt if you are at all capable. If you were you would have already seen that you and your Darwinian fundamentalist buddies have missed the whole question miserably.Borne_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
09:20 PM
9
09
20
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill and others: I started writing my previous post before you posted so... At any rate, there is a fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Association between Darwin's theory and racism compared to association between Christianity and racism or other evils, is not a given. Association between Darwin's theory and eugenics, racism etc., is a mere logical conclusion based on reasoning it through. It is easy to see Darwin's own racism in his writings (Descent is full of it) and how it was supported by his theory. On the other hand, you're right to imply that Christianity cannot be blamed for the racism or wickedness of "religious" persons such as those mentioned. The problem for you is not to point out associations but to demonstrate a logical link from doctrine to racism. Indeed, as I pointed out, racism is quite obvious in Darwin's writings. The very term "favoured races" implies such. Eugenics condemned by most evolutionary biologists? Agreed, but that doesn't mean the logical link isn't still there inherent within the theory. That is what you must prove! Who started and supported the 19th century eugenics movement? Darwin's cousin - Francis Galton, coined the term eugenics in 1883. Based on what "scientific" theory? We all know the answer. All he was doing was taking Darwin's ideas and bringing them to their logical conclusions. It is a simple process of logic to see why Darwin's theory implies a necessary racism of some kind and support of eugenics. This you deny and state that any racist views or actions upheld by Darwinian disciples does not come from his theory. However, this is exactly what you must demonstrate - the absence of logical link; Not the existence or absence of support by scientists. Indeed, few reasonable persons will support it. Most simply do not see and do not want to see the logical link that is clearly there. Denial is not the same as proof. I would also challenge you to find logical grounds for links to racism within Christianity. The very foundation of Christianity holds that "God doesn't discriminate between Jewish and non-Jewish people" Peter's words in Acts 15:9 and "And he has made of one blood all the nations of men living on all the face of the earth..." Act 17:26 Indeed, the command of Christ is to announce the good news to all nations and that all from "every tribe, and language, and people, and nation," have this solution offered to them. "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Rom 10 Thus, you may quote every evol. biologist or Darwinist in the world against eugenics and racism, but that doesn't change a thing if the link is a logical consequence inherent in the theory itself. I'm quite aware that modern variations of the theory claim a more monogenist view on human origins and thus are less prone to criticism and logical links to racism, yet Darwin's view, and that of many modernevolutionists, (polygenist) clearly leads to such. As far as eugenics goes, that is quite another study than racism yet germinating roots of which can still be easily spotted in Darwin's writings and not uniquely those of Galton and colleagues. If Darwinism is true and humans are mere animals "sharing a common heritage with earthworms", where indeed is the value of human life to be garnered from? Why should humans be more valuable than dogs or worms? Under the Darwinian paradigm there can be no adequate answer to this. And if no reason, then why not eugenics - euthanasia, assisted suicide (state of Washington recently) etc. Furthermore look at Darwinist/atheist Holland, where hospitals are now feared by the elderly and their families because of the "Darwinian" based practice of "mortification" whereby patients lives may be "terminated! by a physicians decision on their quality. There we have a current example of implementation of Darwinian theory taken to it's logical conclusions; and it is now settling in the West as well. You could be next on the list under these atheist/Darwinist "medical" policies. Just don't get sick. Just hope your aging parents don't. So briefly, we all know that most evolutionary biologists are against eugenics and most are also against racism - but that isn't even the point! The point is in the logical implications of the theory itself. I truly hope you can see the difference.Borne_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Give it a rest. The entire year will be repleat with adoration for Darwin. I would venture to guess that neither CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, The Times, or The Chronicle will harbor any admissions coming from the scientific community, nor will the universities. Why wash your hands if there is nothing on them? Besides, it wouldn't befit the zero tolerance policy against the opponents of ideological scientism - and lord knows thats certainly more important than Darwin, and vastly more important than any racism from the 1800's. In the end, it doesn't matter. The evidence of our biological history is what matters. And, as far as that goes, I haven't run across a single biologists that can stand and address the questions with anything near the humility the evidence deserves. On that note --> Allen, why don't you now return to the conversation you seem to be avoiding (if being politely asked 4 times to rejoin the conversation without giving any response can be considered "avoiding" the conversation) https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/dont-use-the-d-word-its-being-eliminated/#comment-305327Upright BiPed_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT}

And since Denyse O'Leary believes she is entitled to repeat herself, let me add this list to Allen MacNeill's and remind ourselves of why, as a self-professed Catholic, she is in no position to adopt a high moral tone given her church's involvement for centuries in slavery which, let us be in no doubt, was in itself a form of racism:
In the fourth century, St. Augustine thought slavery could be beneficial to both slaves and masters; in 650 Pope Martin I forbade people to help slaves escape; in 1179 the Third Lateran Council decreed the enslavement of anyone helping the Saracens; in 1226 Pope Gregory IX incorporated slavery into the Corpus Iuris Canonici (Canon Law), where it remained until 1913; in the 13th century, St. Thomas Aquinas considered slavery to be in accordance with natural law and a consequence of original sin; in 1454 Pope Nicholas V’s bull Romanus Pontifex allowed the King of Portugal to enslave Saracens and pagans at war with Christians; in 1493, Pope Alexander VI gave the same right to the King of Spain in fighting native Americans; in 1548 Paul III allowed both clergy and laity to own slaves; in 1866 Pope Pius IX specifically declared that “slavery in itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery, and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. … It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”
...and again..
595 CE: Pope Gregory dispatched a priest to Britain to purchase Pagan boys to work as slaves on church estates. Circa 600 CE: Pope Gregory I wrote, in Pastoral Rule: “Slaves should be told…not [to] despise their masters and recognize that they are only slaves.” 655 CE: In an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, the 9th Council of Toledo ruled that all children of clerics were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into the canon law of the church. 13th century CE: Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) accepted the teachings of the ancient Greek Pagan philosopher, Aristotle, that slavery is “natural.” 1404 CE: After Spain discovered the Canary Islands the Spanish colonized the islands In 1435 Pope Eugene IV wrote a bull to Bishop Ferdinand of Lanzarote titled “Sicut Dudum.” In it, he noted that the black inhabitants of the Islands had been converted to Christianity and either baptized or promised baptism. Subsequently, many of the inhabitants were taken from their homes and enslaved. He commanded that all enslaved Christians who were inhabitants of the Canary Islands be freed from slavery. The Pope’s concern appears to have been over the enslavement of Christians by Christians, not the institution of human slavery itself. 1452/4 CE: Pope Nicholas V wrote Dum Diversas which granted to the kings of Spain and Portugal the right to reduce any “Saracens [Muslims] and pagans and any other unbelievers” to perpetual slavery. 1519: Bartholomew De Las Casas, a Dominican, argued against slavery. “No one may be deprived of his liberty nor may any person be enslaved” He was ridiculed, silenced and ignored. 1537 CE: Pope Paul III wrote in Sublimis Deus about the enslavement of persons in the West and South Indies. He wrote that Satan: “… the enemy of the human race…has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving Word of God. … Satan has stirred up some of his allies … who are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians be reduced to our service like brute animals. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions we would scarcely use with brute animals. … Rather, we decree that these same Indians should not be deprived of their liberty…and are not to be reduced to slavery.” only hostile non-Christians, captured in just wars, could become slaves. 1548 CE: Pope Paul III confirmed that any individual may freely buy, sell and own slaves. Runaway slaves were to be returned to their owners for punishment. 1629 to 1661 CE: Pope Urban VIII in 1629, Pope Innocent X in 1645 and Pope Alexander VII in 1661 were all personally involved in the purchase of Muslim slaves. Late 17th century: The institution of slavery was a integral part of many societies worldwide. The Roman Catholic church only placed two restrictions on the purchase and owning of slaves: - They had to be non-Christian. - They had to be captured during “just” warfare. i.e. in wars involving Christian armies fighting for an honorable cause. Late in the 17th century, Leander, a Roman Catholic theologian, wrote: “It is certainly a matter of faith that this sort of slavery in which a man serves his master as his slave, is altogether lawful. This is proved from Holy Scripture…It is also proved from reason for it is not unreasonable that just as things which are captured in a just war pass into the power and ownership of the victors, so persons captured in war pass into the ownership of the captors… All theologians are unanimous on this.”
When challenged to produce any Papal documents which endorsed slavery I found the following passages taken from an English translation of the full text of the Bull Romanus Pontifex issued by Pope Nicholas V, January 8th, 1455:
We have lately heard, not without great joy and gratification, how our beloved son, the noble personage Henry, infante of Portugal,…has not ceased for twenty-five years past to send almost yearly an army of the peoples of the said kingdoms with the greatest labor, danger, and expense, in very swift ships called caravels, to explore the sea and coast lands toward the south and the Antarctic pole. And so it came to pass that when a number of ships of this kind had explored and taken possession of very many harbors, islands, and seas, they at length came to the province of Guinea, and having taken possession of some islands and harbors and the sea adjacent to that province, sailing farther they came to the mouth of a certain great river commonly supposed to be the Nile, and war was waged for some years against the peoples of those parts in the name of the said King Alfonso and of the infante, and in it very many islands in that neighborhood were subdued and peacefully possessed, as they are still possessed together with the adjacent sea. Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ…We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso — to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit…
Seversky_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Borne [3] how, precisely, does Allen's initial comment fail to "deal with it"?David Kellogg_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT}

That would require critical thinking on Borne's part.Allen_MacNeill_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Borne:
I wouldn’t hold my breath on waiting for any Darwinist ever admitting that the man or his theory had any flaws happening any time soon.
Try reading Allen MacNeill's comment above.B L Harville_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

I doubt they will ever "deal with it" Denyse - not until there is no other choice left to them. They cannot deal with it. To even address it, in their minds, would be to expose their idol Darwin and his racist ideas (all based on his theory) to criticism. Something they know they can't afford to do. We already know too well how readily they jump at opportunities to do just the opposite and how squeamish and vehemently aggressive they become at the slightest suggestion that the man or (especially) his ideas are worthy of any reproach whatsoever. It's like asking the Bolsheviks of the early 20th century to admit Marx and Lenin were fascist creeps. From my own debating experience, they will merely express the idea that most white people of his day were racist and held similar views on blacks, Indians, women, etc., that those types did not base their racism on Darwin's theory and that therefore Darwin was no worse than his contemporaries and his theory is irrelevant to racism. Of course, he was no better than his contemporaries either, and although it is infinitely clear that his ideas on "favoured races" sprung directly from his theory, they will utterly deny the fact and go on to point out many fanatical religious types from Christianity's history that twisted the gospel and went on to violent and racist actions. In their minds people like Hitler twisted and misused Darwins' theory. And as much as even a quick superficial reading of descent shows the contrary, they'll be in denial till they awaken from the deep and deadly sleep of materialism. I wouldn't hold my breath on waiting for any Darwinist ever admitting that the man or his theory had any flaws happening any time soon. Popular and convenient (for atheists/materialist) falsehoods die hard.Borne_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT}

In the meantime, attacks on anyone’s character are entirely beside the point.
Character assassination was the whole point of your post.
You can be sure you will be hearing from me again - and again - on this.
Repeating yourself ad nauseam is exactly what we expect from you.B L Harville_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT}

Here you go: At this year's Darwin Bicentennial Celebration at Cornell the department of ecology and evolutionary biology co-sponsored a panel discussion on "Evolution and Racism". All four the the panelists, two of whom were African Americans (three were evolutionary biologists and one was a sociologist) agreed that by today's standards Darwin and most of his contemporaries were racists. And they also pointed out that evolutionary biologists today – people like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Will Provine, and Robert Trivers – are among the strongest and most vocal opponents of racism, especially "scientific racism". You can read about it here: http://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=YjRlMHB0bWR2Z3EwNzE0YnFhN2tqdjVqYWcgbXVzZXVtb2Z0aGVlYXJ0aEBt&ctz=America/New_York Two years ago I served on a panel at the Cornell Darwin Day Celebration that dealt with "Evolution and Eugenics". All four of the panelists (three evolutionary biologists and a Tallman Prize winner) agreed that Darwin's ideas were used by eugenicists to justify their heinous policies. They also pointed out that evolutionary biologists were among the members of the UNESCO panel that issued the United Nations' 1950 statement on eugenics and race, which condemned both in the strongest of terms, and that virtually no evolutionary biologist has actively supported eugenics since 1945. You can read about it here: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb07/Darwin.lgk.html Now admittedly, the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell is not “a world association of evolutionary biologists”. However, it is widely recognized as one of the premier institutions of its kind in the world. How about this:
“The simple fact remains: there is no "inferior" race; the genetic differences between races are trivial.”
This statement comes from the National Center for Science Education, as part of a report on “Racism and the Public's Perception of Evolution”, available online here: http://ncseweb.org/rncse/22/3/racism-publics-perception-evolution (paragraph 31, second sentence) Even ID supporters might be willing to admit that the NCSE is a “world-recognized organization of evolutionary biologists”. After all, they complain about the immense political power of the NCSE, and the fact that virtually all evolutionary biologists agree with their organization’s views, including the one quoted above. There have also been multiple sessions at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meetings on this and related subjects, which have condemned the use of evolutionary biology to support racism. Last, but not least, one could also read The Mismeasure of Man, perhaps the strongest indictment of "scientific racism" published in the second half of the 20th century, by Stephen Jay Gould, one of the premier evolutionary biologists of the 20th century. Now let me make a prediction: none of these will satisfy O’Leary, because her demand is not made with the expectation that there will be any evidence to the contrary. No, her demand is that some unspecified “world association of evolutionary biologists” make a “public retraction of Charles Darwin’s views”, which would, of course, include his theory of evolution. Kind of like asking someone if they’ve stopped beating their grandmother yet… While we’re at it, perhaps O’Leary would suggest that all of the religious organizations that have opposed Darwin’s theories to do the same thing: that is, retract their previous support for racism, based on their religious views. Here’s a sample: • William Bell Riley - who founded the World Christian Fundamentals Association and sent William Jennings Bryan to Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 to prosecute John T. Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of Tennessee’s Butler Act- advocated white supremacy as well as a ban on the teaching of evolution. • Evangelist Billy Sunday endorsed the Klan Kreed of white supremacy and bitterly attacked evolution. • Early in the 20th century, Bob Jones Sr's revivals were supported financially by the Ku Klux Klan. Later, as most religious denominations in the US denounced the Klan, Southern Baptists - whose denomination was organized in 1845 as a haven for pro-slavery Baptists - were "unanimously silent on the question of the Klan" Southern Baptists opposed not only integration and other antiracist efforts, but also the teaching of evolution, denouncing Darwinism as "a soul-destroying, Bible-destroying, and God-dishonoring theory". Sound familiar? • Bob Jones University, founded by Bob Jones Sr. in 1927 (two years after the Scopes trial) as "a college with high academic standards; an emphasis on culture; and a down-to-earth, practical Christian philosophy of self-control that was both orthodox and fervent in its evangelistic spirit". Until a massive public-relations problem forced the university to reconsider its policy in 2000, it prohibited interracial dating, which was viewed as "playing into the hand of the Antichrist" by defying God's will regarding God-made differences among the races. So I’ll make a deal with O’Leary: every time she brings up Darwin’s racism and tries to tie it to evolutionary biology as a whole, I’ll bring up the racists who used religion as a justification for racism. And, if she’s game, I’ll work with her to get the issue brought up in our respective organizations, and see if it flies. Should be interesting…Allen_MacNeill_{March 10, 2009
March
03
Mar
10
10
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply