Darwinism Intelligent Design Racism

At The Scientist: Stuff about Darwinian racism we’ve been saying for years…

Spread the love
How Zoologists Organize Things

But let biologist and science writer David Bainbridge tell it, riffing off his new book, How Zoologists Organize Things: The Art of Classification:

The respected German über-Darwinist Ernst Haeckel perpetuated the myth of evolutionary progress when he claimed influentially that Judaism is an evolutionary intermediate between primitive paganism and advanced Christianity, and when he asserted that non-Europeans are “physiologically nearer to the mammals—apes and dogs—than to the civilized European. We must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives.”

Zoology must fight hard to decontaminate itself from the value judgments and skewed arguments of the past. Already, we no longer speak of animals as primitive or advanced, and those concepts have become meaningless in the context of humans too. Additionally, the human species is no longer considered to be gouped into a number of discrete races, but rather an array of populations, each adapted to its ancestral geographical environment, yet blurring genetically and culturally into its neighbors.

David Bainbridge, “Zoology’s Racism Problem” at The Scientist

The article starts by referencing the death of George Floyd as having “wide-ranging impacts” in getting science boffins to confront this stuff. It’s awful that anyone had to make that happen.

Note: An excerpt of Bainbridge’s book is available.

See also: Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne contemplates the idea that Darwin might be Canceled. But here’s the really interesting part: Coyne points to a medallion struck by Darwin’s wife’s family, the Wedgwood (who were abolitionists). But the medallion fits creationism far better than Darwinism.

10 Replies to “At The Scientist: Stuff about Darwinian racism we’ve been saying for years…

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Racism is a human problem so it exists in the sciences, the arts, religion, all areas of human activity. We are still slowly and painfully trying to work our way free of it but it won’t be quick and it won’t be easy and it won’t happen at all until we all admit that the seeds of it, at least, are in all of us.

    Yes, Darwin and the people of his generation held what we now judge to be racist views, so did people long before Darwin published his work. How could they have been other than people of their time? Future generation will no doubt pass similar judgments on attitudes and behaviors that we now take for granted. All we can do is to treat our fellow humans – all of them, not just our particular tribe – as we would like to be treated ourselves.

  2. 2
    BobRyan says:

    Racism is the belief that one race is superior to all others. The Zulus under Shaka believed they were the superior tribe and slaughtered everyone in their path until they went up against the British. Mexico teaches that they are racially superior for no other reason than being born in Mexico, which is why La Raza is a racist organization. Racism exists in the United States. Organizations like the Klan still exist, but fractured with no leadership. Black power is every bit as racially motivated as brown power and white power.

    The United States has had black people at all levels of government and business. Rather than call everyone who is an American citizen Americans, hyphenated Americans continue to exist. That hyphen is racially motivated. Cities run by Democrats make it difficult for people to start their own businesses. Red tape stands in the way and there is no demand to remove even a layer of bureaucracy.

  3. 3

    The American “experiment”, a story of a representative republic of “We the People” has resulted in a nation that has struggled through racism to a point where today systemic racism has been eliminated in government and much of the culture. Where it exists, and it certainly does, it is in individual and group bad choices.
    The story of American racial struggles, though often times an ugly story, should not be rewritten and destroyed as is being done with Critical Race Theory and the New York Times 1619 project. We have much to be proud of as a civilization.

    I have put together an allegorical story of America – take a look:

    https://ayearningforpublius.wordpress.com/2020/07/03/from-little-acorns-mighty-oak-trees-grow/

  4. 4
    BobRyan says:

    The origin of representative government in the United States started at Jamestown. 1619 was the year the first laws were written by a legislative body. They were based on English Common Law and made no reference to slavery being legal.

    https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1619-laws-enacted-by-the-first-general-assembly-of-virginia

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky states:

    Yes, Darwin and the people of his generation held what we now judge to be racist views,

    Hmm, ?, perhaps Seversky is just forgetful of the little fact that Wilberforce, and other Christian reformers, “had spent decades in the early 19th century teaching Britain to view non-European races as their equals before God. In a matter of years, Darwin swept not only God off the table, but also the value of people of every race with him.”

    What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin – Phil Moore / April 19, 2017
    Excerpt: ,,, the British thinker who justified genocide.,,,
    The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory:
    “The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
    – C. Darwin,,,
    Christian reformers had spent decades in the early 19th century teaching Britain to view non-European races as their equals before God. In a matter of years, Darwin swept not only God off the table, but also the value of people of every race with him.
    Enabling Genocide
    Victorian Britain was too willing to accept Darwinian evolution as its gospel of overseas expansion. Darwin is still celebrated on the back of the British £10 note for his discovery of many new species on his visit to Australia; what’s been forgotten, though, is his contemptible attitude—due to his beliefs about natural selection—toward the Aborigines he found there. When The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, he didn’t try and stop them. When the Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”,,,
    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin

    Besides overlooking the fact that Christian reformers in Britain had been successful in ending slavery in Britain before Charles Darwin came along and severely set back their work in view ng races as equal, Seversky is also all too willing to overlook comments like the following by Charles Darwin,,,

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    ?- Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178

    That comment, which directly follows from Darwin’s own theory, is simply unacceptable. It is morally unacceptable now, and it was also morally unacceptable then. Moreover, it is now known to be a scientifically false claim.

    Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations – 2007
    ?Excerpt: The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations.?
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm.....MC1893020/

    Seversky also suggests that,

    Future generation will no doubt pass similar judgments on attitudes and behaviors that we now take for granted.

    Could Seversky possibly be referring to the current widespread practice of abortion?

    How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World
    Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
    Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.
    “The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).
    Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).
    http://www.gnmagazine.org/issu.....-world.htm

    Despite Seversky attempt to make excuses for Darwin’s theory, the fact of the matter is that not only does Darwin’s theory denigrate certain races, but Darwin’s theory also ends up denigrating all of humanity in the process of denigrating certain races:

    Darwinism and “No Lives Matter” -June 25, 2020
    Excerpt: As Professor Weikart explains, Darwin’s racism is not incidental to his case for evolution. It’s not as if he was merely a product of his time, with the reprehensible attitudes held by other upper class Brits when he wrote his books. Yes, he was anti-slavery. And yes, he embodied the racism that came before him. He didn’t invent it. But he also used it as “evidence” for his theory. He believed that different races of humans represented biological variations (in intelligence, moral capacity, and more) on which the natural selection process could work, just as it could on finch beaks. His conclusion of a racial hierarchy with Africans at the bottom, his projection of eventual racial “extermination,” were no stray inference. The documentaries Human Zoos and The Biology of the Second Reich show how Darwinian theory continued to motivate racism, eugenic drives, and genocide into the 20th century.
    Not a Bug but a Feature
    Weikart continues by noting that later Darwinists (such as Peter Singer) drew logical consequences from evolution, including that since all human beings are the product of random natural forces, they possess no special dignity. Human life is not precious. Or to put it another way, via John Zmirak: NO LIVES MATTER. By contrast, the religious traditions that evolutionary theory pushes aside possess ample reason for respecting humans universally as equals, of identical value and dignity, no matter the color of their skin. Of course, there have been “religious” racists. But that is a contradiction with their professed faith. Those who call for vandalizing churches because of depictions of a “white” Jesus don’t understand this.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/darwinism-and-no-lives-matter/

    Early Christian Opposition to Infanticide
    Excerpt: “Infanticide was common in all well studied ancient cultures, including those of ancient Greece, Rome, India, China, and Japan.”(It even led to the collapse of some ancient cultures),,, From its earliest creeds, Christians “absolutely prohibited” infanticide as “murder.” Stark, op. cit., page 124. To Christians, the infant had value. Whereas pagans placed no value on infant life, Christians treated them as human beings. They viewed infanticide as the murder of a human being, not a convenient tool to rid society of excess females and perceived weaklings. The baby, whether male, female, perfect, or imperfect, was created in the image of God and therefore had value.
    http://christiancadre.org/memb.....icide.html

    The horror and misery that Darwin’s theory unleashed on the world is hard to imagine or exaggerate,

    Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes – Foundational Darwinian influence in their ideology –
    July 2020
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831

    How Seversky does not recoil in horror to the fact that he champions such a morally abhorrent theory, I have now idea. Does Seversky even have a heart?

    Verse:

    Galatians 3:28
    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

  6. 6
    Truthfreedom says:

    1 Seversky
    Your darwinian apologetics fail. Darwin was a despicable racist.

    Darwin and “The Savages”

    Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages.” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages.
    The Dark Side of Darwinism

    __________

    All we can do is to treat our fellow humans – all of them, not just our particular tribe – as we would like to be treated ourselves.

    Those are Christian teachings, not “darwinian” ones. Darwinism is amoral and its core value is “survival of the fittest”.

  7. 7
    AaronS1978 says:

    @sev
    You are right racism is a human problem completely verifies and supported by the scientific theory known as Darwinian evolution. Great news right, I’m mean the nazis literally used it as a reason to purge jews

  8. 8
    ET says:

    There isn’t a scientific theory known as Darwinian evolution. Scientific theory and Darwinian evolution only belong in the same sentence under that context.

  9. 9
    AaronS1978 says:

    I know it’s not I’m being sarcastic

  10. 10
    BobRyan says:

    The English Reformation did far more than bring an eventual acceptance of non-Europeans, it brought an acceptance of Jews. Joachim Gans was the first practicing Jew to set foot on the soil that would eventually lead to the 13 colonies turned states.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-first-practicing-jew-america-finally-gets-his-due-180973186/

Leave a Reply