Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

And another thing: Evolutionary biology is “ableist”!


That is, opposed to people with disabilities! Or anyway, as progressives — running out of new targets — turn on unaccustomed ones, that’s their latest claim.

From the Daily Wire:

The paper argues that concepts like “fitness” and “natural selection” — foundational to the field of evolutionary biology, which studies the diversification and adaptation of life forms over time — are “harmful” and have been “weaponized against marginalized communities in the modern day.” And the authors’ thesis is that evolutionary biology’s use of purportedly “ableist” terms and concepts discourages disabled people from studying the field, and is therefore more discriminatory of the disabled than other areas of study. But instead of sampling from other academic disciplines, the authors claim that “the proportion of disabled evolutionary biologists is far below the population average.”

The authors compared a National Center for Science and Engineering Studies (NCSES) statistic that found 8.1% of disabled doctorate recipients in the life sciences with a CDC statistic that found 26% of the US population was disabled. But upon closer inspection, this 26% CDC statistic was determined through self-reporting, based on a six-question set, and included participants 65 and over who have considerably higher rates of age-related disabilities.

Christina Buttons, “New Paper Claims Evolutionary Biology Is ‘Ableist.’ Here’s How It Misrepresented The Data.” at Daily Wire (January 16, 2023)

The paper requires a fee or subscription.

The topic is complex in this case. True, the evolutionary biology field is totally dominated by Darwinism, a survival-of-the-fittest cult which is supposed to explain the history of life on Earth. Hence the “ablist” terms employed.

But, in fairness to the Darwinists, they probably aren’t intentionally discriminating against people with disabilities. They are used to destroying the careers of doubters, able or otherwise. They have never before been called to account for that.

Will the apparent pixie dust that has protected them even from evaluation of the popularity of Darwinism among white supremacists continue to protect them today? We shall see.

You may also wish to read: Michael Shermer is complaining about the Cancel Culture Darwinians like himself helped create. Now that it is attacking the revered Darwinian E. O. Wilson (1929–2021).

and When scholars simply don’t want to believe something obvious … they are very good at developing clever arguments to avoid seeing it.The relationship between white supremacy theories and pop science mag evolutionary theory is quite clear but also very embarrassing to acknowledge.

What a horrible, horrible article. As a working editor, I would have had a long talk with the writer about journalism, ethics and bias. Sickening. There's no need to point to the Nazis. Besides, too many have a distorted image of the situation in Europe at the time. Aside from purging the untermensch/sub-human peoples from Europe, there were those involved in slave labor and forced labor. Meanwhile, in the United States, a group of Total Strangers released the Birth Control Pill in 1960 in an attempt to stop the flow of babies. It was only available by prescription but most women did not want or need it. A marketing and propaganda campaign began in 1967 with a Time magazine cover story about The Pill. And at the top of the page: 'Freedom from Fear.' Fear of what? Babies. That bundle of joy, that gift from God was now to be feared. Really? In 1968, the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws set out to lie to the American people and the Media. In truth, most Americans did not want permissive abortion but they promoted a different and false scenario: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55401/an-ex-abortionist-speaks Let's skip ahead to the present and laws that promote Assisted Suicide. It's legal in ten states and the District of Columbia. Oh, this is 'progress' alright. Progress toward barbarism. "The topic is complex in this case." No, it's not. relatd
Targets become a question of: Which target is most convenient to hit just now?
The Montagnards always destroy the Girondins when they become unnecessary. Remember that Robespierre went to the guillotine. It’s amazing that the malcontents who come here and elsewhere who spout nonsense don’t understand this simple concept. jerry
"why Darwinism is not longer needed" News, The shine on it came off, due to it being obviously flawed. But... as long as the Grand Narrative can be retold with different euphemisms, nothing really has changed. Most of the people who would go to war for Evolution don't care what the details of it are, anyway. Andrew asauber
All true, bornagain, and thanks! The reason Darwinism survived various purges is that it was a useful weapon in Cancel Culture. Now, it seems no longer to be needed so the Darwinians and their icons are expendable. Do readers have hunches as to why Darwinism is not longer needed, hence those who attack it are not Canceled in principle? Here's one hunch: When everything is racist (or sexist, or ableist), nothing is - or anyway, not in particular. Targets become a question of: Which target is most convenient to hit just now? Bases for attacks can be determined later, assuming they are even needed or sought. News
Evolutionary biology, via eugenics, is, and has been, far more discriminatory against disabled people than, supposedly, just discouraging "disabled people from studying the field". Evolutionary biology, via eugenics, led to nothing less than the mass extermination of disabled people in Nazi Germany.
Disability, Eugenics, And The Culture Wars - Paul A. Lombardo* I. Introduction: Eugenics And Disability Excerpt: Francis Galton’s formal definition of eugenics in 1883 created a field that would study and advocate for “well-born” children, emphasize heredity, and exert a powerful impact on social policies.1 Lawmakers were seduced by the idea that people are marked with the genetic residue of their ancestors. Government, they said, could sort the fit and the unfit and decide which citizens are worthy to have children. But history shows that instead of improving society, eugenics merely provided a cover for abusing the poor and the disabled. https://www.slu.edu/law/academics/journals/health-law-policy/pdfs/issues/v2-i1/lombardo_article_0.pdf Holocaust Memorial - Disabled People Excerpt: Severely mentally and physically disabled people, as well as those perceived to have disabilities, were targeted because of Nazi beliefs that disabled people were a burden both to society and to the state. From 1939 to 1941 the Nazis carried out a programme of ‘euthanasia’, known as the T4 programme. The name T4 is an abbreviation of Tiergartenstrasse 4, the address from which the programme was coordinated.,,, In 1939 the killing of disabled children and adults began. All children under the age of three who had illnesses or a disability, such as Down’s syndrome, or cerebral palsy were targeted under the T4 programme. A panel of medical experts were required to give their approval for the ‘euthanasia’, or supposed ‘mercy-killing’, of each child. Many parents were unaware of the fate of their children, instead being told that they were being sent for improved care. After a period of time parents were told their children had died of pneumonia and their bodies cremated to stop the spread of disease. Following the outbreak of war in September 1939 the programme was expanded. Adults with disabilities, chronic illnesses, mental health problems and criminals who were not of German origin were included in the programme. Six killing centres were established to speed up the process – the previous methods of killing people by lethal injection or starvation were deemed too slow to cope with large numbers of adults. The first experimental gassings took place at the killing centre in Brandenberg and thousands of disabled patients were killed in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. The model used for killing disabled people was later applied to the industrialised murder within Nazi concentration and extermination camps such as Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is estimated that close to 250,000 disabled people were murdered under the Nazi regime. https://www.hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/nazi-persecution/disabled-people/
Shoot besides discriminating against the disabled, there is also discrimination against women, discrimination between races, and also discouragement of charity to the poor, which also follow from Darwin's theory,
Noah Carl: I’m a sociologist who got canceled – and I fear CHARLES DARWIN might not survive this purge of science & history - 13 Jun, 2020 Excerpt: Up until now, Darwin has been considered something of a hero on the political left, due to the religious right’s opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools (or at least, their insistence that one should“teach the controversy” that supposedly surrounds evolution and creationism). However, it is quite possible there will soon be a reckoning. For Darwin’s writings contain ample statements that would put him far beyond the pale of what is now considered acceptable. First, differences between the sexes. In The Descent of Man, Darwin states that “the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” And in an 1882 letter, he states that “women though generally superior to men to moral qualities are inferior intellectually,” and that “there seems to me to be a great difficulty from the laws of inheritance… in their becoming the intellectual equals of man.” He also observes in The Descent of Man that “the male sex is more variable in structure than the female.” This observation has since become known as the greater male variability hypothesis, and has been applied to a variety of human traits including, mostcontroversially, intelligence. Second, differences between the races. Referring to some natives he encountered in South America during the voyage of the Beagle, Darwin observes, “one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures.” He dedicates a whole chapter of The Descent of Man, to his study of “the races of man.” In that chapter he states, “There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other… Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.” And in an earlier chapter of the book, he contrasts the “civilised races of man” with “the savage races,” noting that the former will “almost certainly exterminate, and replace” the latter. Third, eugenics. In The Descent of Man, Darwin states, “We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination… Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind.” He then observes, “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” However, he also notes, “Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature… We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.” https://www.rt.com/op-ed/491673-sociologist-got-canceled-darwin-purge/
Shoot, systemic racism is literally built into the museum exhibits that purport to show man evolving from some ape-like creature
Human Evolution as a “Path to Whiteness” - November 24, 2021 Excerpt: Do Your Own Google Search I had never thought of this before. In contemporary museum displays and other evolutionary depictions, just as in Darwin’s Descent of Man and in the notorious Civic Biology textbook that was at issue in the 1925 Scopes Trial, human origins are portrayed as an upward progress from dark to white. Neanderthals, however otherwise “primitive” (which is questionable in itself), are shown as light-skinned. And maybe they were, but modern man — Homo sapiens — is almost invariably white and European, not African or Asian. Check out some examples from around the Internet, here, here, here, here, and here. (links on site) Do a Google image search for the phrase “human evolution” and you’ll see many others. Just a coincidence? Or is Darwin’s racist legacy still with us today? You tell me. For a deeper exploration of that legacy, see John West’s documentary Human Zoos. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/human-evolution-as-a-path-to-whiteness/
Of note: We have far more reason to doubt the scientific accuracy of these 'systemically racist' museum 'artistic reconstructions', purporting to show man evolved from some ape-like creature,, than is generally believed.
Ancestor bias - Museum depictions of ‘human ancestors’ challenged—by evolutionists by Philip Robinson - Nov. 2022 Excerpt: A team of researchers recently looked at artistic renderings of humans’ alleged ape-like ancestors. They openly discussed a wide range of issues of concern in how these are depicted.1 The team noted that there have been very few ‘hominin’ fossils ever found. In fact, they highlighted that the total number of finds is less than the number of anthropologists active today. So, comparing reconstructions of the small number of individual hominin finds is relatively easy. Lead researcher Ryan Campbell wrote, “I expected to find consistency in those reconstructions displayed in natural history museums, but the differences, even there, were so severe that I almost thought all previous practitioners had never encountered a single hominid reconstruction before commencing their own.”2 ,,, In addressing their original question about museums they suggested that while their artistic renditions are technically impressive, “There are potential educational harms in presenting unscientific reconstructions of hominins under the shroud of presumed validity.” They suggested that the reasons for museums doing so “can most likely be attributed to factors outside the control of science”.3 In wanting to appear to present a coherent and convincing story of evolution, a great deal of ‘scientific/artistic licence’ is inappropriately used in ‘hominin’ reconstructions.,,, In fact, australopithecines in many respects “clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than do these two living groups from each other. The australopithecines are unique.”4 Also, they did not, as many believe, walk upright in the human manner.5 https://creation.com/museum-apemen-challenged-by-evolutionists Dec. 2022 - Thus in conclusion, the claim from Darwinists that humans evolved from some ape-like creature is, for all intents and purposes, based entirely on untethered imagination and ‘artistic reconstruction’, rather than on any substantiating, much less any compelling, scientific evidence. In short, the ‘narrative’ of human evolution belongs far more to the realm of fantasy and fairy tales than it does in the real world of empirical science. https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-sci-news-human-bipedalism-may-have-evolved-in-trees-study-says/#comment-772256
Shoot, besides the engendering discrimination against the disabled, racism, and misogyny, Darwin's theory also engenders discrimination against mankind as a whole by denying that man is created in 'God's image'. In fact, to view man as somehow being superior to other species is, in a Darwinian view of things, to commit the sin of "Speciesism". The results of trying to equate man with other animals are, to put it mildly, not good. As Peter Singer put the Darwinian position on speciesism, "On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? This sounds like speciesism to me,"
Peter Singer Thinks Intellectually Disabled Less Valuable than Pigs - Wesley J. Smith - February 25, 2017 Excerpt: In his apologetics for infanticide, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has used a baby with Down syndrome as an example of a killable infant based on utilitarian measurements.,, "On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? This sounds like speciesism to me," - Singer,, ,,, Moreover, the very concept of “speciesism”–used liberally in animal rights activism and bioethics–is inherently and invidiously anti-human because it reduces us to so many carbon molecules with no inherent value beyond our cognitive capabilities at the moment of measurement. To repeat myself, speciesism philosophy, like utilitarianism, makes universal human rights impossible to sustain intellectually. Assuming such utilitarian values would destroy the principles of Western Civilization. And never mind the real capacities of many people with Down, which Singer mischaracterizes, or their extraordinary loving natures–which I have yet to see Singer opine much about. To Singer, intellect trumps all. That’s bigotry any way you look at it, no different than racism, except that his victims are less able to defend themselves. I have always found it odd that Singer faces little of the opprobrium society metes out to other bigots. Indeed, he was brought to Princeton from Australia and given one of the world’s most prestigious chairs in bioethics–despite not having an academic Ph.D.–precisely because of these attitudes. Despite supporting the propriety of killing babies, I have no doubt that Singer will continue to be the New York Times’ favorite philosopher. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/peter-singer-thinks-intellectually-disabled-less-pigs/

Leave a Reply