Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

Eugenics and the “bad guy” in everyone but Darwin

Spread the love
Three quarter length studio photo showing Darwin's characteristic large forehead and bushy eyebrows with deep set eyes, pug nose and mouth set in a determined look. He is bald on top, with dark hair and long side whiskers but no beard or moustache. His jacket is dark, with very wide lapels, and his trousers are a light check pattern. His shirt has an upright wing collar, and his cravat is tucked into his waistcoat which is a light fine checked pattern.
Charles Darwin, 1854

This article about Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin, a key figure in the eugenics movement, manages to avoid mentioning Darwin, even though he was clearly among those Victorians for whom racism was a normal point of view:

And by the standards of today, Galton does resemble a monster. He was a brilliant statistician but also a racist (not just my assessment, but that of Veronica van Heyningen, the current president of the Galton Institute). He was obsessed with human difference, and determined to remove from British society those he considered inferior.

Yet as our critical gaze falls on Galton, are we losing sight of just how popular his idea was among so many Britons? In the early 20th century, a surprisingly broad roster of public figures aligned themselves with Galton’s vision. It attracted people on the left and right, prominent writers and intellectuals, leading scientists and politicians. Virginia Woolf, TS Eliot, DH Lawrence, Julian Huxley, Winston Churchill, Marie Stopes – all held eugenic views. Churchill was vice-president of the first International Eugenics Conference, held in London in 1912. Although there were notable critics, to be a eugenicist was to be firmly in the mainstream.

Angela Saini, “In the twisted story of eugenics, the bad guy is all of us” at The Guardian

Okay. How come in a world where nothing is sacred and the bad guy is all of us, Darwin alone is exempt?

See also: Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism

Follow UD News at Twitter!

17 Replies to “Eugenics and the “bad guy” in everyone but Darwin

  1. 1
    EDTA says:

    >Virginia Woolf, TS Eliot, DH Lawrence, Julian Huxley, Winston Churchill, Marie Stopes…

    …Calvin Coolidge, Luther Burbank, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Henry Ford, Alexander Graham Bell, Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, Margaret Sanger,…

  2. 2
    john_a_designer says:

    Why has Leonard Darwin been written out of history?

    This article discusses the contribution to evolutionary theory of Leonard Darwin (1850-1943), the eighth child of Charles Darwin. By analysing the correspondence Leonard Darwin maintained with Ronald Aylmer Fisher in conjunction with an assessment of his books and other written works between the 1910s and 1930s, this article argues for a more prominent role played by him than the previously recognised in the literature as an informal mentor of Fisher. The paper discusses Leonard’s efforts to amalgamate Mendelism with both Eugenics and Darwinism in order for the first to base their policies on new scientific developments and to help the second in finding a target for natural selection. Without a formal qualification in biological sciences and as such mistrusted by some “formal” scientists, Leonard Darwin engaged with key themes of Darwinism such as mimicry, the role of mutations on speciation and the process of genetic variability, arriving at important conclusions concerning the usefulness of Mendelian genetics for his father’s theory.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26391791

    Here is a little more biographical information.

    Major Leonard Darwin (1850 – 1943) was one of Charles Darwin’s sons, and is noted as an active eugenicist.

    Darwin pursued a life in the army, and later a life of science and politics before he was persuaded to take over the Eugenics Education Society (later, the British Eugenics Society), after his father’s cousin, Sir Francis Galton, died in 1911. Darwin remained president of the society until 1928.

    Darwin was extensively involved in eugenic activities. He wrote The Need for Eugenic Reform in 1926, and followed this with the popular What is Eugenics?. In addition to having a large hand in helping organize the International Eugenic Congress’, Darwin is noted for mentoring R. A. Fisher, particularly in areas close to neo-Darwinism, genetics, and statistics. Fisher held Darwin in high regard until Darwin’s death in 1943, and even dedicated The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection to his mentor.

    https://eugenicsarchive.ca/discover/tree/5233e3405c2ec500000000da

  3. 3
    Mimus says:

    It’s possible Darwin was left off this list of people who publically supported eugenics in “early 20th century” because he died in the 1880s and never supported eugenics.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Mimus correctly states that Darwin ‘never supported eugenics.’ And while in his personal life Darwin was not a racist, none-the-less, Darwin understood the implications of his own theory.

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

    In short, Darwin was inconsistent in his thinking.

    And while Darwin himself may have held to racial equality, (and held to the equality of all men in general), his theory certainly provides no moral justification and/or foundation for his belief in the equality of all men. As the following article points out, “Evolution is based on difference, not on equality.”

    Words & Dirt – Quotes 10-21-2015 – by Miles Raymer
    Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.,,,
    So here is that line from the American Declaration of Independence translated into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.
    http://www.words-and-dirt.com/.....0-21-2015/

    In fact, women were also considered to be biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to the implications of Darwin’s theory:

    Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued –
    “The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”
    In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective.
    As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.”
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....of-terror/

    In short, Darwin, and anyone else who believes in Darwinism, must ‘borrow’ from Judeo-Christian principles in order to justify their belief in the basic equality of all men and women.

    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.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    The following article states,

    Darwin, Charles –
    Excerpt: Ultimately, Darwin’s personal opinions about eugenics had much less impact on the eugenics movement than his theories. Whether or not he would have agreed with it, the theory of evolution and natural selection provided a scientific and theoretical basis for eugenic ideas and actions.
    -Natalie Ball
    http://eugenicsarchive.ca/disc.....0000000050

    And Darwin’s theory indeed provided a supposed ‘scientific’ basis for much of the unmitigated horror that was visited upon mankind in the 20th century,

    Karl Marx was deeply influenced by Darwin:

    Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010
    Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx –
    “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.”
    Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 –
    “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.”
    The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote –
    “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”
    Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote –
    “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?”
    To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin.
    https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/

    In fact, Lenin himself even kept a little statue of an ape staring at a human skull on his desk. The ape was sitting on a pile of books which included Darwin’s book, “Origin”.

    “V.I. Lenin, creator of the Soviet totalitarian state, kept a little statue on his desk—an ape sitting on a pile of books including mine [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life], gazing at a human skull. And Mao Zedong, butcher of the tens of millions of his own countrymen, who regarded the German ‘Darwinismus’ writings as the foundation of Chinese ‘scientific socialism.’ This disciple mandated my works as reading material for the indoctrination phase of his lethal Great Leap Forward.” Nickell John Romjue, I, Charles Darwin, p. 45
    https://thunderontheright.wordpress.com/2012/02/09/hitler-lenin-stalin-mao-and-darwin/

    Here is a picture of what the little statue on Lenin’s desk looked like:

    Hugo Rheinhold’s Monkey
    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61Y8HpKyHOL._SL1009_.jpg

    Stalin likewise, while at ecclesiastical school of all places, was also heavily influenced by Darwinism,

    Stalin’s Brutal Faith
    Excerpt: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
    G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates:
    “I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said:
    “‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’
    “I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.
    “‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed.
    “‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said.
    “‘What book is that?’ I enquired.
    “‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” 1
    1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,,
    http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/

    Chairman Mao was also deeply influenced by Darwinian ‘morality’:

    Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution
    Excerpt: Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors.
    https://creation.com/deconstructing-darwin-darwins-impact

    Darwin and Mao: The Influence of Evolutionary Thought on Modern China – 2/13/2013
    https://nonnobis.weebly.com/blog/darwin-and-mao-the-influence-of-evolutionary-thought-on-modern-china

    Adolph Hitler himself stated,

    “The law of selection exists in the world, and the stronger and healthier has received from nature the right to live. Woe to anyone who is weak, who does not stand his ground! He may not expect help from anyone.”
    – Adolf Hitler

    “Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable.”
    – Adolf Hitler – Mein Kampf

    The unmitigated horror unleashed on the world by Darwinian ‘morality’, i.e. by the direct undermining of the Judeo-Christian worldview, is almost beyond comprehension. Here’s what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:

    “169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
    I BACKGROUND
    2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
    3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
    II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
    4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
    5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
    6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
    7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
    III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
    8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
    9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
    10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
    11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
    12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
    13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
    14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse
    IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
    15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
    16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
    17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia”

    This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world.
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Even today in America, with its strong Christian heritage, and even though America overcame the Nazi and Communist scourges in Europe, has not escaped unscathed from the devastating effects of “Darwinian morality”.

    At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA – graph
    http://skepchick.org/wp-conten.....704889.jpg

    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

    Moreover, the sad irony of all this is that such devastating “Darwinian morality” is based on misleading, even on fraudulent, ‘science’.

    For instance, directly contrary to what was presupposed in Darwin’s theory, it is found that the differences between individuals in a population are far greater than differences between races of populations:

    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/

    Race in a Genetic World – May-June 2008
    Excerpt: ,,85 percent occurs within geographically distinct groups, while 15 percent or less occurs between them. (Agassiz 1972)
    http://harvardmagazine.com/200.....world-html

    DNA Variation Widens Human-Chimp Chasm – Jeffrey Tomkins – 2017
    Excerpt: In the past several years, new sequencing technologies have become commercially available that provide much longer reads of 10,000 to 215,000 bases.2,3 These new long-read sequencing technologies allow for the more accurate assembly of the human genome, revealing some incredible surprises about human genetic diversity.,,,
    The results from these new papers using long-read technology have been startling and are shaking up the entire human genomics community. The most surprising finding was that the research demonstrates that large regions of the human genome can be markedly different between any two humans,,,
    The bottom line is that any two human genomes can be up to 4.5% different from one another, in marked contrast to the previous estimate of 0.01% based solely on single-base changes.5
    These newly found large differences in human genomes conflict with the evolutionary idea that humans and chimpanzees are 98.5% similar in their DNA. If humans can be up to 4.5% different from each other, how is it that chimps are supposedly only 1.5% different from humans? The fact of the matter is that the 98.5% similarity figure is based on cherry-picked data designed to bolster evolution. Newly published research by this author clearly shows that chimpanzee DNA overall is, at most, only 85% similar to human.9
    http://www.icr.org/article/9939

    In fact, in what would have been a great surprise to Hitler, (and in keeping with the principle of Genetic Entropy, (J. Sanford http://www.geneticentropy.org/properties ), it is found that Caucasians (as well as the other races) are actually genetically inferior to Africans.

    “We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations,” Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. “Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians.”
    Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University “La Sapienza,” Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

    New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa – October 22, 2012
    Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans’ anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the “Out of Africa” expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago.
    This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-10-a.....nsion.html

    Finding links and missing genes: Catalog of large-scale genetic changes around the world – October 1, 2015
    Excerpt: “When we analysed the genomes of 2500 people, we were surprised to see over 200 genes that are missing entirely in some people,” says Jan Korbel, who led the work at EMBL in Heidelberg, Germany.,,,
    African genomes harboured a much greater diversity overall.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....094723.htm

    “…but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have…”
    Maciej Marian Giertych – Population Geneticist – member of the European Parliament – EXPELLED
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations – (Nov. 28, 2012)
    Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins — the workhorses of the cell — occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,
    “One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,”,,,
    “Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older.” (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,,
    The report shows that “recent” events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers.
    The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....132259.htm

    In fact, blond hair, blue eyes, and fair skin, (contrary to what the Nazis thought), are all the result of a loss of preexisting genetic information (i.e. Genetic Entropy). They are not the result of a gain of new genetic information as the Nazi’s had presupposed in their Darwinian racial ideology:

    Daily thought: blue eyes and other gene mutations, April 25, 2013
    Excerpt: “Research on blue-eyes has led many scientist to further affirm that humans are truly mere variations of the same origin. About 8% of the world’s total population has blue eyes so blue eyes are fairly rare. In fact, blue eyes are actually a gene mutation that scientist have researched and found to have happened when the OCA2 gene “turned off the ability to produce brown eyes.”
    http://www.examiner.com/articl.....-mutations

    The Genetics of Blond Hair June 1, 2014
    Excerpt: ,,,When he and his colleagues studied this regulatory DNA in human cells grown in a laboratory dish, they discovered that the blond-generating SNP reduced KITLG activity by only about 20%. Yet that was enough to change the hair color. “This isn’t a ‘turn the switch off,’ ” Kingsley says. “It’s a ‘turn the switch down.’ ”
    “This study provides solid evidence” that this switch regulates the expression of KITLG in developing hair follicles,
    http://news.sciencemag.org/bio.....blond-hair

    Melanin
    Excerpt: The melanin in the skin is produced by melanocytes, which are found in the basal layer of the epidermis. Although, in general, human beings possess a similar concentration of melanocytes in their skin, the melanocytes in some individuals and ethnic groups more frequently or less frequently express the melanin-producing genes, thereby conferring a greater or lesser concentration of skin melanin. Some individual animals and humans have very little or no melanin synthesis in their bodies, a condition known as albinism.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin#Humans

    Are Wisdom Teeth (Third Molars) Vestiges of Human Evolution? by Jerry Bergman – December 1, 1998
    Excerpt: Curtis found that both predynastic Egyptians and Nubians rarely had wisdom teeth problems, but they often existed in persons living in later periods of history. He concluded that the maxillary sinus of the populations he compared were similar and attributed the impactions he found to diet and also disuse causing atrophy of the jaws which resulted in a low level of teeth attrition. Dahlberg in a study of American Indians found that mongoloid peoples have a higher percentage of agenesis of third molars then do other groups and few persons in primitive societies had wisdom teeth problems. As Dahlberg notes, third molars were ‘very useful in primitive societies’ to chew their coarse diet.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....sdom-teeth

    In fact. directly contrary to Darwinian thought, (and also in keeping with the principle of Genetic Entropy, J. Sanford), it is now found that “Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion.”

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? – January 20, 2011
    Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”
    “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,,
    He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

    Cro Magnon skull shows that our brains have shrunk – Mar 15, 2010 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: Using new technology, researchers have produced a replica of the 28,000-year-old brain and found that it is about 15-20% larger than our brains.
    http://phys.org/news187877156.html

    Also of related note: The infamous I.Q. tests, (i.e. “Bell Curve”), that have shown supposed large differences in the intelligence between races of humans, are all shown to be biased by overlooked environmental factors:

    Myth: The black/white IQ gap is largely genetically caused.

    Fact: Almost all studies show the black/white IQ gap is environmental.
    (i.e. children from an enriched learning environment always perform equally well on I.Q. tests, no matter what their race may be.)
    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-IQgapgenetic.htm

    Simply put, cultural influences, i.e. the way the child is brought up to think about the importance of his own education, plays a far more important role in a child’s subsequent intelligence than any supposed genetic differences between races do:

    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.

  8. 8
    PaV says:

    Contrast Charles Darwin’s veiw of races:
    At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

    with the Catholic Church’s view of races: the Catholic Church, in the face of the challenge presented by the discovery of the New World, had to decide whether the Aztecs were nothing more than savage animals, or, were indeed human beings, created in the image and likeness of God, and worthy of the sacraments of the Church.

    It’s decision was historical: indeed, they were humans (as the Spanish Franciscans–those evil people!, wrote to the Church authorities in Spain) and deserving of Baptism. The correspondence between Mexico and Spain forms the very basis of what we know today as “human rights.”

    Quite a contrast, isn’t it? Darwin sees these same Aztec savages as disappearing from the earth, while the Catholic Church saw them as deserving full human rights and dignity. This word, dignity, is perhaps the key word in all of this. Darwinism, with its denial of teleology, and hence God, renders human beings as no more than mere animals—except the British upper crust, and, thus, not worthy of protection or care. It’s a preview, isn’t it, of abortion? And who is it that promotes abortion today? Yes, Planned Parenthood, whose founder, Margaret Sanger, was a convinced eugenicist.

    Let’s not forget that William Jennings Bryan’s participation in the Scopes Trial in Tennessee in the mid 1920’s was predicated on only one thing: he was afraid of eugenics and what it would bring. Well, in the abortionist’s view, Bryan lost that trial, and we now see the results. Heaven help us!

  9. 9
    Ed George says:

    This oft quoted comment from Darwin is a prediction, no different than KF’s often repeated prediction about the downfall of civilization. In both cases they are making predictions based on what they have observed. Note than Darwin never said that his predictions were morally acceptable.

    But what is disturbing is the accuracy of Darwin’s predictions. Although the “civilized” races have not exterminated the “savage” races, they have certainly exterminated, to a large extent, their cultures and traditional ways of life. And we are still well within his predicted time frame.

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77@ 4

    Mimus correctly states that Darwin ‘never supported eugenics.’ And while in his personal life Darwin was not a racist, none-the-less, Darwin understood the implications of his own theory.

    He saw the way that indigenous peoples were being treated by the so-called more civilized (and Christian) races and extrapolated to former’s possible fate. He was stating a prediction not approval.

    And while Darwin himself may have held to racial equality, (and held to the equality of all men in general), his theory certainly provides no moral justification and/or foundation for his belief in the equality of all men.

    Once again, Darwin’s theory was explanatory. It didn’t make any moral judgments at all. That wasn’t its function.

    In short, Darwin, and anyone else who believes in Darwinism, must ‘borrow’ from Judeo-Christian principles in order to justify their belief in the basic equality of all men and women.

    Or “Is racism Christian?”

    Recently, however, an edition of Zygon has discussed the notion that the origins of racialism are not to be found in scientific anthropology, but in the general ideas that preceded it. To wit, in Christian thought. The symposium, entitled “Terence Keel’s Divine Variations: A Symposium”, includes pro- and con- views of Keel’s thesis that “the formation of the race concept in the minds of Western European and American scientists grew out of and remained indebted to Christian intellectual history”

  11. 11
    Ed George says:

    Sev@10, I have always been deeply disturbed by the use of the term “chosen people” in the bible when referring to the Jewish people. Especially since this was referring to their ancestry, not their religious beliefs. As such, I have always had a difficult time arguing that this is not fundamentally racist in nature.

  12. 12
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77@ 5

    And Darwin’s theory indeed provided a supposed ‘scientific’ basis for much of the unmitigated horror that was visited upon mankind in the 20th century,

    Argumentum ad consequentiam again. At no point did Darwin advocate the sort of horrors perpetrated by the twentieth-century dictatorships.

    Besides, Christianity has its fair share of atrocities to account for, such as the Massacre at Ayyadieh during the Third Crusade

    On the 16th of August Richard [I of England] ordered that all the prisoners from Acre should be taken to a small hill called Ayyadieh. There in full view of the Muslim army and Saladin’s own field headquarters, around 3000 soldiers, men, women, and children from the city (according to Muslim sources) were put to the sword [2].

    And let’s not forget the Great Flood in which God slaughtered almost all human life on Earth (along with countless other animals). He seemed to have no moral qualms about killing on that scale. I wonder how many infants, babies and unborn in the womb were among the dead?

  13. 13
    Seversky says:

    Ed George@ 11

    Sev@10, I have always been deeply disturbed by the use of the term “chosen people” in the bible when referring to the Jewish people. Especially since this was referring to their ancestry, not their religious beliefs. As such, I have always had a difficult time arguing that this is not fundamentally racist in nature.

    I have to agree. And it looks like some of us still haven’t learned the lesson when we see American evangelical Christians arguing that the military and economic successes of the United States are evidence that God looks favorably upon them and that they are now His chosen people.

  14. 14
    Ed George says:

    Hardly. After all, we elected Trump. 🙂

  15. 15
    Seversky says:

    “Those whom the gods would destroy…”

  16. 16
    ET says:

    Ed George:

    I have always been deeply disturbed by the use of the term “chosen people” in the bible when referring to the Jewish people.

    So what? You are a deeply disturbed person.

    As such, I have always had a difficult time arguing that this is not fundamentally racist in nature.

    You are not smart enough to make that case. 😛

  17. 17
    ET says:

    seversky:

    At no point did Darwin advocate the sort of horrors perpetrated by the twentieth-century dictatorships.

    If Darwin was right then there weren’t any horrors. It was all just part of life.

    Besides, Christianity has its fair share of atrocities to account for, such as the Massacre at Ayyadieh during the Third Crusade

    You are conflating people with a religion. How small of you.

    And let’s not forget the Great Flood in which God slaughtered almost all human life on Earth (along with countless other animals).

    Objective people would wonder why that happened. Ignorant people just blame God.

Leave a Reply