Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Few want to hear this but … Darwinism made racism science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A retired surgeon offers some thoughts about John West’s Darwin Day in America (2014, second edition):

At first glance, it might seem that whether we believe in evolution as a purely material, unguided process should make no difference to values or morality. Yet, in his 2007 book Darwin Day in America: How Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, Discovery Institute’s John West looks at the question more deeply and shows otherwise. In a nearly encyclopedic manner, he documents the numerous impacts Darwinism has had in the public square. It has had a distinctively destructive effect on our society. Dr. West provides a plethora of examples in each chapter of how Darwinism has changed the courts, the schools, the medical establishment, the conduct of the scientific community, and, indeed, the man on the street.

A War of Worldviews

As the book shows, Darwinism is a Weltanschauung at war with the Judeo-Christian theistic system on which Western civilization and scientific inquiry are based. Many of Dr. West’s examples were unknown to me, and will be news to many other readers. In a skillful and scholarly fashion, he unearths the contest between faith and “science,” while providing references for any claims that he makes. The book is divided into sections, with each oriented around a specific theme. I’ll be as brief as possible in this two-part review.

Kenneth Feucht, “Darwinism and the “So What?” Question: John West’s Darwin Day in America” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 25, 2022)

See, some of us go well back into the 1950s. Darwinism was conveyed in the culture in a way that reinforced racism (like, there were three human “races,” did you know?). As it happened, most of us had little contact with the other two.

For reasons familiar to anyone who follows human psychology, our group was supposed to be the smartest. We were told to be nice to the others anyway. They couldn’t help their stupidity, nor could we.

That was the view smart people had. Stupid Fundamentalists, by contrast, still believed in Adam and Eve…

Most of the legal issues around “race” that we addressed in those days were complicated by Indigenous status or women’s rights (or lack thereof), which is not the same thing as “race.” It was a legal issue in Canada who was or wasn’t entitled to be considered a “registered” Indigenous person and what benefits that such a status did or did not confer. It really didn’t affect our overall assumptions about “race” in general. The implicit assumptions around such ideas were conveyed in the culture.

Comments
[Quote] "The atrocities inflicted on indigenous peoples around the world were perpetrated by agents of colonial powers who considered themselves good Christians. The boarding schools, which the children of the indigenous peoples of North America were forced to attend, are but one example. On that basis, we could just as easily – and just as incorrectly – blame Christianity for what was done." [My response]: These are not analogous things at all. You cannot have it both ways. If it is proper to speak of Darwinism as a science, then it is neutral and therefore open to multiple applications. You cannot speak of Darwinism as a scientific theory and at the same time treat it as a philosophy that could be properly or improperly applied. A body of philosophy or religious teachings can - in many cases - be improperly applied, especially when there is a dogmatic component that describes how they should be observed. This is so with Christian beliefs which categorically rule out even the possibility of abuse or degradation of others. To be a good Christian means to adhere to Christian teachings, not to function in violation of them. On the other hand, Darwinian principles are not a philosophy with a dogmatic administration. Hence the use of Darwinism as a key component in scientific racism is simply unchallengeable fact. To use one example, the furtherance of Darwinian science was directly responsible, for example, in the European trophy hunting for skeletons of indigenous people around the world. I've included a link below to an article in the Guardian about this particularly abhorrent trade. The author points out: "Medical schools, still under the spell of Darwinism, wanted full corpses and skeletons to compare with the Anglo Saxon dead, so they might reinforce the fallacious orthodoxy that each race represented a distinct evolutionary phase." Any effort to deny this is both an effort to turn Darwinism into a philosophy (or a tacit acknowledgement that Darwinism is a sort of religious concept), or a demonstration of pig-ignorance of the relevant historiography. I studied Darwinism at a secular university as an undergraduate in history. We spent considerable time on Darwinism's relationship with racism. You can find a superfluity of scholarly papers on any reputable academic database that document the application and interpretation of Darwinism in relation to race. Incidentally, I currently study at a seminary in South Africa. Christianity is in a phase of rapidly expansion in Africa to such a degree the global south is likely to become the epicentre of Christianity in the future, far exceeding the weight of the global north. Clearly Africans themselves are able to distinguish between colonisers misusing Christianity, and Christianity itself. [Quote]: "If we actually want to end racism, the first step is to stop blaming other people or cultures or scientific theories and accept that it is a human problem. The seeds of it at least are in all of us and we will have to make a positive effort to curb those instincts." [My response]: That's a very convenient plea for a Darwinist who doesn't want to confront\reflect upon the dark side of the theory that formulates his worldview. Nobody denies that racism is an inherent problem in humankind and has existed in various guises long before Darwinism, however Darwinism and its principle of higher and lower states of evolution and its concept of descent and racial divergence has been a significant idea in the history of racism. It's wonderful to want to sing kumbaya around the campfire of humanity at the dawn of the 21st century, but there can be no progress against dehumanising ideas without the intellectually honest acknowledgement of what has powered them in the past, or how Darwin's principles have been applied in fomenting racism even within the scientific establishment. [Quote]: "Darwin was inescapably a man of his time as we all are. He shared at least some of the prejudices of his generation concerning women and racism but he was very far from being the worst and certainly not the only one to think in those terms. If you read on from the passage from Ontogeny and Phylogeny quoted above you will see that Gould discusses many others from that period who held what we would now regard as racist views." [My response]: This is merely a truism. Of course, people are products of their time but that does not mean significant ideas do not perpetuate bad effects long into the future. Living in denial of that reality is how racism continues in obscure forms and in hidden systemic biases. Darwinism is an idea that has revolutionised nearly every aspect of human thought. It has bled over into political and social philosophy to aid racist objectives for nearly a hundred years. It has formed a key foundation for some of the grossest racial projects in human history, including the Holocaust. I find it sad that Darwinists come out battling to defend this theory using exactly the arguments religious people often employ - there are "good Darwinists and bad Darwinists"; they're just "people of their time" etc. - albeit Darwinists do so with far less credibility and consistency. Your earlier language indicates that you have no problem holding Christianity to account for the actions of colonisers. Yet Darwinism gets this elaborate sanitising defence even though it is supposed to be a neutral scientific theory and not a philosophy or a religion. Darwinists often like to pretend that Darwinism was "incorrectly applied" by murderous racial regimes. Nearly "every defence of Darwinism" I have ever read on this subject has been mere polemic void of any meaningful argument. This is because it is transparent that Darwinism is readily applied to racial projects. There is some evidence that Darwin himself thought in these terms about other races, and certainly Darwinin scientists of the past (lacking the enlightenment of contemporary hindsight) evidently thought various forms of scientific racism were valid applications of the theory. It's quite easy to say, "Well, that's the past. People of their time and all that", but I'll bet London to a brick you don't apply that standard consistently to theories, religions, philosophies or ideologies with which you disagree. Moreover, the fact Darwinism is treated by its adherents like religion, in need of historical protectionism and even historical revisionism, with a dogmatic declaration of "proper and improper" applications, demonstrates that Darwinism *is* a religion. [Quote]: We should also be aware that to attack the theory of evolution on the grounds that it was enlisted by racists to support their agendas is to commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam or appeal to consequences. It says nothing about the scientific merits of the theory. [My response]: If you are going to appeal to rhetorical fallacies, at least make sure you understand the fallacy to which you appeal. Nobody is arguing that Darwinism is false because it led to racial consequences. Nobody here has made that claim. The charge that there are insurmountable problems with Darwinism are derived upon other grounds. Neither is it fallacious to point out that Darwinism has formed an important element in racist politics and activities in the past. To argue such a humdrum observation (and one widely accepted within 19th century historiography) commits an appeal to consequences would obviously make it impossible to draw *any* observation from history or formulate *any* logical theses that describe outcomes. This is a self-evident misapplication of an informal fallacy. Citation mentioned above: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/14/aboriginal-bones-being-returned-australiaCalvinsBulldog
April 20, 2022
April
04
Apr
20
20
2022
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Darwin did not think highly of anyone who was not like him, both white and male. Some writers separate themselves from their work, but Darwin never did. It was his own personal beliefs that he wrote about. Anyone who embraces Darwin must embrace the foundation of who he was.BobRyan
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT
Maybe we should ask the indigenous peoples throughout the globe what had the most racist influence in their lives, Darwin or the Church.JHolo
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
09:48 PM
9
09
48
PM
PDT
Seversky @9,
As has been rightly pointed out, racism existed long before Darwin published his theory.
Yep, but Darwin gave racism scientific respectability. -QQuerius
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
As has been rightly pointed out, racism existed long before Darwin published his theory. The atrocities inflicted on indigenous peoples around the world were perpetrated by agents of colonial powers who considered themselves good Christians. The boarding schools, which the children of the indigenous peoples of North America were forced to attend, are but one example. On that basis, we could just as easily - and just as incorrectly - blame Christianity for what was done. If we actually want to end racism, the first step is to stop blaming other people or cultures or scientific theories and accept that it is a human problem. The seeds of it at least are in all of us and we will have to make a positive effort to curb those instincts. Darwin was inescapably a man of his time as we all are. He shared at least some of the prejudices of his generation concerning women and racism but he was very far from being the worst and certainly not the only one to think in those terms. If you read on from the passage from Ontogeny and Phylogeny quoted above you will see that Gould discusses many others from that period who held what we would now regard as racist views. We should also be aware that to attack the theory of evolution on the grounds that it was enlisted by racists to support their agendas is to commit the logical fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam or appeal to consequences. It says nothing about the scientific merits of the theory.Seversky
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
Quote: "No, it didn’t. What is it with surgeons and “Darwinism”? Maybe we need an update of the Salem Hypothesis to include them." This is a truly mind-boggling assertion to anyone who is familiar with the history of racism. It is certainly a history that is very familiar to our African friends who learn in their colleges about the role of Darwinism on the colonial project and justifications for racial segregation. Even the concept of "race" itself is one that has been long jettisoned by biologists since it is simply a groundless idea. Racism did exist before Darwin, but Darwinism was nonetheless an instrumental development in the emergence of "scientific racism" since it baptised it with an allegedly biological justification. To deny Darwinism's application to various racial projects around the world is simply monumental ignorance. It can be very bold ignorance and make strong, edgy declarative statements, but it is ignorance nonetheless.CalvinsBulldog
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
Yes it did... “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of (Darwin's)evolutionary theory” Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977 Stephen Gould ( ) insert mine Darwin on races and savages... "Civilized races can certainly resist changes of all kinds far better than savages; ..." Really? did Michael Jordan, Obama, Oprah, Chris Rock "evolve" quickly from "savages?" What would Darwin say today about resisting "changes of all kinds" by "savages" today? He literally made stuff up. Which defines Darwinism to this day.DATCG
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
I'll have to order West's book off Amazon before the alt-left deem it to be a form of hate speech. Weikart's new book is a must purchase as well.KRock
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
Andrew
The above is a clear illustration of that he is. He’s a materialist demi-god, evidently. It’s really all quite bizarre.
I just browsed that site - yes, it's bizarre and truly amazing.Silver Asiatic
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
11:11 AM
11
11
11
AM
PDT
"ABOUT DARWIN DAY International Darwin Day on February 12th will inspire people throughout the globe to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin. It will be a day of celebration, activism, and international cooperation for the advancement of science, education, and human well-being. Local and state governments will close in commemoration of the Day, and organizations and businesses will celebrate by engaging in community outreach centered around science as a tool for the betterment of humanity. Darwin Day will be observed by the United Nations and its members as an opportunity for international partnerships through the common language of science for the common good of all. The mission of International Darwin Day is to inspire people throughout the globe to reflect and act on the principles of intellectual bravery, perpetual curiosity, scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin." https://darwinday.org/ Sev, What is it with governments, organizations, businesses, activists, the UN, and "Darwinism"? What the h*ll has one to do with the other? Andrew SA described Darwin as a mythological figure. The above is a clear illustration of that he is. He's a materialist demi-god, evidently. It's really all quite bizarre.asauber
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
he documents the numerous impacts Darwinism has had in the public square. It has had a distinctively destructive effect on our society. Dr. West provides a plethora of examples in each chapter of how Darwinism has changed the courts, the schools, the medical establishment, the conduct of the scientific community, and, indeed, the man on the street.
The destructive effects are very wide-ranging and it's remarkable how little analysis and writing is done on this. I think the vast majority of Christians never identify Darwin at the root of the anti-Christian ideology that they are aware of. In academia, Darwin is sacred so nobody dares to go against him.
Darwinism is a Weltanschauung at war with the Judeo-Christian theistic system on which Western civilization and scientific inquiry are based
The war against theism was part of the plan from the beginning. It was more subtle in Darwin's time, but it became more overt with Darwinian disciples like Herbert Spencer, J.S. Mill and Thomas Huxley. Richard Dawkins inherited that anti-Christian movement and tries to advance it.
We were told to be nice to the others anyway. They couldn’t help their stupidity, nor could we. That was the view smart people had. Stupid Fundamentalists, by contrast, still believed in Adam and Eve…
Exactly. The naive and stupid public could be tolerated and manipulated eventually. But the fundamentalists were evil and had to be attacked. Racism is just a variation of "we're the smart ones", which is what the scientific elite remains today.Silver Asiatic
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
The eugenics types were running rampant everywhere in the 1920s, and took over completely in Germany. Their version of Darwin was just one of their icons. They could have done equally well without citing Darwin. Focusing on Darwin helps to remove the blame from the wealthy and powerful monsters who were driving the movement.polistra
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
Few Want To Hear This But … Darwinism Made Racism Science
No, it didn't. What is it with surgeons and "Darwinism"? Maybe we need an update of the Salem Hypothesis to include them.Seversky
April 19, 2022
April
04
Apr
19
19
2022
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply