Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design

If the social justice warriors got rid of Darwinian racism, they might do some good after all

Spread the love
Human Zoos

Darwinian evolution, we are told, hasn’t caught on, after 150 years. We are also told, it needs a new social justice narrative:

“Such a human evolution requires a new narrative, both hyper-sensitive to the power of narrative and rooted in science that is light years ahead of Victorian dogma. This is the antidote to a long history of weaponizing human nature against ourselves. Our 45th president credits the survival-of-the-fittest brand of human evolution for his success over less kick-ass men in business and in bed. Pick-up artists and men’s rights activists, inspired by personalities like Jordan Peterson, use mistaken evolutionary thinking to justify their sexism and misogyny. Genetic and biological determinism have a stranglehold on the popular imagination, where evolution is frequently invoked to excuse inequity, like in the notorious Google Memo. Public intellectuals like David Brooks and Jon Haidt root what seems like every single observation of 2018 in tropes from Descent of Man. And there’s the White House memo that unscientifically defines biological sex. Evolution is all wrapped up in white supremacy and a genetically-destined patriarchy. This is not evolution. And this is not my evolution. I know you’re nodding your head along with me. Holly Dunsworth, “It Is Unethical To Teach Evolution Without Confronting Racism And Sexism” at The Evolution Institute

Well, many of us are nodding off, it is true, but… that’s mainly because we hear all these demons cast out weekly, daily, hourly, zzzzz.

What’s different here, come to think of it, is that Dunsworth is associating her peeves with Darwin’s Sacred Name and even going so far as to suggest remedies other than “You shut up, creationist! If we tell you as a fact that the human mind can explained by apes throwing poop, that’s science to you!”). No, she actually pays some attention to the history of that approach:

“In “Why Be Against Darwin? Creationism, Racism, and the Roots of Anthropology,” Jon Marks explains how early anthropologists, in the immediate wake of Darwin’s ideas, faced a dilemma. If they were to continue as if there were a “psychic unity of (hu)mankind” then they felt compelled to reject an evolution which was being championed by some influential scientific racists. Marks writes, “So either you challenge the authority of the speaker to speak for Darwinism or you reject the program of Darwinism.” Anyone who knows someone who’s not a fan of evolution knows that the latter option is a favorite still today. This is not creationism and it is not science denial. It is the rejection of what we know to be an outdated and tainted notion of evolution. No one can update and clean up evolution as powerfully as we can if we do it ourselves, right there, in the classroom. Holly Dunsworth, “It Is Unethical To Teach Evolution Without Confronting Racism And Sexism” at The Evolution Institute”

Well, good luck with that. It is very difficult to get the average evolution missionary to acknowledge the simple fact that Darwin’s Descent of Man is a racist tract. So what, many say. There were lots of racist tracts around. Why beat up on this one? Well, because the effort that goes into denying the problem and talking around it keeps it alive as a problem.

And bringing the question up to date, many assumptions in evolution have racist roots. See, for example, “Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence” If we can’t discuss the racist roots of Darwinian theory honestly, we simply can’t even address questions like that, questions that could be important in the light of new findings.

Dunsworth offers suggestions for teaching evolution, such as “Be a model for the personal satisfaction that thinking evolutionarily brings to your own life.” Well, that’ll be interesting.

In recent months, the heirs of Darwin have come up against the social justice warriors and turned into enraged spaghetti. They are not set up to sustain a long siege. They have always expected to win just by declaring Darwin’s Truth, ridiculing all contrary data, and getting opponents fired. And they have always been allowed to do that. Will that change?

Note: Here’s an earlier story involving Holly Dunsworth, above. When I first heard about the Cuckservatives… (2015). She was a target of the Dark Enlightenment, a group that congregated around science writer Nicholas Wade, whose last book before retirement seems to have been a defence of Darwinian racial ideas (which we might expect Dunsworth to oppose). The Dark Enlightenment was trying to smear her as a creationist. For a bit of background on the larger (and strange) business of Wade’s Troublesome Inheritance book, see Scientific American May Be Owned By Nature But It Is Now Run By Twitter. (2014)

See also: Social justice warriors ( SJWs) turn their sights on another evo psych prof It actually doesn’t matter what he concludes. You can’t reason with a pack. Having been taught from childhood that humans are animals, the SJWs have become a pack. For technical reasons, that is easier for them than becoming a hive.

The perfect storm: Darwinists meet the progressive “evolution deniers” — and cringe…

and

About the facts of life, Darwinian Jerry Coyne is still being stubborn … Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry “Why Evolution Is True” Coyne continues to refuse to follow Nature down the primrose path of political correctness and is doubling down on what people used to be allowed to accept as biological fact (Coyne was president of an evolution society which has started to wobble on whether sexes are real divisions.)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “If the social justice warriors got rid of Darwinian racism, they might do some good after all

  1. 1
    Belfast says:

    Interesting article, but a totally unnecessary sling at Trump for an illustration.

  2. 2
    vmahuna says:

    Well, yeah, maybe. The serious Science of Racism has been based on statistical analyses of specific measurable traits, most especially IQ. And those statistical analyses do consistently find there to be significant differences between the races.

    The most obvious “measurable difference between races” is showcased every day on TV: just watch some professional basketball. Since men of African ancestry make up about 10% of the US population, why aren’t most (all?) basketball teams made up of 90% European ancestry and 10% African ancestry? Clearly there is Discrimination involved, and discriminating coaches (and viewers) regularly find that “White men can’t jump”. This would appear to be an example of Darwinian Evolution, or at least “selective breeding”.

    Problems and complaints about discrimination only occur when one of the Chosen Minorities fails to live up to expectations in an “equal opportunity” test and demands that “testing” produce “equal results”, which is kinda the OPPOSITE of Testing.

    But Darwinism is about causes for speciation, not about selective breeding and hybridization within a species. EVERYBODY accepts that we can selectively breed puppy dogs and dairy cattle. And talented people (e.g., Luther Burbank) can consistently mix species to produce amazing hybrids, although many of those hybrids are sexually sterile. Sexually sterile offspring is of course a FAILURE Evolutionwise.

  3. 3
    Seversky says:

    I note that Dunsworth works for the Evolution Institute which describes itself as follows:

    The Evolution Institute is a non-profit think tank with a global presence. Our mission is to provide science-based solutions for today’s most pressing social issues in order to improve quality of life

    On its face, that sounds unobjectionable but it goes on to describe its purpose as follows:

    Where others are counseled to have a single focus, the EI is capable of applying a single theoretical framework – evolution – to all major policy issues at all scales, from neighborhoods to nations to world history.

    Here is where it oversteps the bounds, where it tries to leap over the gap between is and ought. Evolution is a theory about what is, specifically how life on Earth came to diversify and flourish after it had appeared. It says nothing about how life – or, more specifically, humanity – should be or behave. In other words, the EI is founded on the same broad naturalistic/is-ought fallacy as the eugenics movement which we all, quite rightly, condemn for the excesses to which it led. I don’t doubt that these people have good intentions but so did the eugenicists.

  4. 4
    Ed George says:

    V

    The serious Science of Racism has been based on statistical analyses of specific measurable traits, most especially IQ. And those statistical analyses do consistently find there to be significant differences between the races.

    And it is well known that Standard IQ tests have significant cultural biases.

  5. 5
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    Evolution is a theory about what is, specifically how life on Earth came to diversify and flourish after it had appeared.

    Evolution is not a theory in the scientific sense. Also Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution.
    Evolution by means of intelligent design is used in genetic algorithms to solve a wide variety of problems. So yes, it can applied in many scenarios outside of biology

Leave a Reply