Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design Racism

Nature tut tuts on eugenics, forgets Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin

Spread the love

A Nature piece mentioning the importance of not forgetting history, especially when it comes to eugenics:

One of the world’s leading universities — University College London (UCL) — has completed an inquiry into its support for the discredited pseudoscience of eugenics. Funds linked to Francis Galton, a racist who believed it was possible to improve the British population through selective breeding, and who founded the Eugenics Records Office at UCL in 1904, continue to line the university’s coffers to the value of more than £800,000 (US$1 million).

The inquiry’s report, released on 28 February, recommended renaming lecture theatres and buildings bearing Galton’s name and that of another prominent geneticist. Although this is welcome, it does not acknowledge just how much yesterday’s mistakes survive in modern science.

As I found while writing my 2019 book Superior: The Return of Race Science, geneticists today rightly treat eugenics as a laughable proposition, and the concept of biological race — the belief that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups with meaningful differences between them — as easily debunked nonsense. But this ignores how these ideas manifest in the real world. They can only be truly understood as age-old intellectual threads, embedded in politics as much now as ever.

Angela Saini, “Want to do better science? Admit you’re not objective” at Nature

A reader writes to remark: No mention of Darwin or evolution, even though eugenics pioneer Francis Dalton was Darwin’s cousin.

No indeed. In our current cultural climate, it is very difficult to have a useful discussion of the contribution Darwinism made to modern racism, as evidenced by racist yammer today featuring “natural selection.

To recap, Darwinism made racism “scientific.” Traditional racism depended on claims of this general sort: “My ancestors were gods, you lesser peoples were formed from the clay.” Obvious malarkey but if the guy was a stout warrior swinging a broadsword, you were limited in useful ways to respond…

Along comes Darwinism and many racists claimed to have scientific evidence. That was much easier to sell to the educated classes in the nineteenth century than the idea that some people’s papa was a god and the rest of us are just bricks. And many committed and devoted Darwinists believed in and co-operated with the new, “scientific” racism.

Until all that can be fully and freely acknowledged, the matter can never be laid to rest.

Note: They should keep Galton’s name on the buildings and endow lectureships at and through the College on the roots of modern racism.

Darwinists, don’t bury your mistakes by renaming buildings and thereafter pretend they never happened; learn from them. The rest of us will, even if you don’t.

See also: At The Stream: Why IS racism wrong if Darwinism is true? John Zmirak asks Woke students.

Historian Richard Weikart weighs in on Darwinian anti-Semitism in Poland. According to Weikart, unfortunately, it is not fake news. White nationalists use Darwinism and evolutionary psychology to promote their perspective.

and

Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism

8 Replies to “Nature tut tuts on eugenics, forgets Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin

  1. 1
    Ed George says:

    A reader writes to remark: No mention of Darwin or evolution, even though eugenics pioneer Francis Dalton was Darwin’s cousin.

    Aah, guilt by association.

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    What a bizarre post title. Far from forgetting Galton, Angela Saini sets the scene with him, and the UCL inquiry into his legacy.

  3. 3
  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Ed George states that the relationship between eugenics pioneer Francis Dalton, a racist, and his cousin Charles Darwin, is merely a mistaken,,,

    “guilt by association.”

    And although Darwinists will often argue that Charles Darwin himself was not a racist in his personal life, and that very well may be so, his theory is, none-the-less, inherently and blatantly racist. The full title of Darwin’s first book is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

    In his subsequent book, “The Descent of Man”, Darwin more explicitly laid out the blatant racism inherent in his theory as such,

    “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

    And if their is any doubt that Charles Darwin did not mean exactly what he wrote, in response to the genocide of indigenous Australians, Darwin stated that “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”

    What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin
    APRIL 19, 2017 | PHIL MOORE
    Excerpt: 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/

    It is frightening how eerily similar Darwin’s comment, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”, is to the following comment by Reinhard Heydrich, the main architect of the Holocaust,,,

    “History will mark us for having the vision and the gift and the will to advance the human race to greater purity in a space of time so short that Charles Darwin would be astonished.”
    – Reinhard Heydrich – Wannsee conference – 1942
    https://www.chron.com/entertainment/article/Hodges-True-life-horror-story-changed-the-world-2029539.php

    Despite the constant protestations of Darwinists to the contrary, Darwinian evolution simply cannot ground equality among men. Evolution is based on physical difference, not on equality. As the following article points out, equality can only be based on Theism which holds, as a self evident truth, that all men are created equal by God.

    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/

    Ed George will often also decry Christianity as being sexist. But what Ed George will never do is honestly admit that Darwin’s theory itself is blatantly sexist,

    According to Darwin, women were considered to be biologically and intellectually inferior to men,

    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/

    Moreover, Ed George, as an atheist, although he obviously believe in the objective moral value of equality of men and women, simply has no way to ground objective morality within his atheistic worldview.

    The Moral Argument (for God) – Dr. Craig
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

    In fact, again if Ed George were honest, (which would be a miracle in its own right), then Ed would honestly admit that his atheistic worldview is completely amoral

    “In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
    – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

    In short, since Ed George simply has no way yo ground objective morality of any sort with his atheistic worldview, and yet Ed George believes so strongly in the objective reality of the morality of equality of men and women, then Ed George should immediately become a Theist, even a Christian.

    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.

    One final note, in the linked article in the OP they state that eugenics is a “pseudoscience of the past.”

    But as Klinghoffer and News pointed out last month, if Darwinian evolution is true, then eugeneics must at least be possible,

    “that’s why Dawkins felt compelled to “combat” the idea that eugenics with humans is impossible. For the Darwinist, whether it is seen as a good or a bad thing, it must at least be possible.”
    https://evolutionnews.org/2020/02/if-human-eugenics-wouldnt-work-human-evolution-has-a-big-problem/

    But aren’t these barriers to effective selective breeding also barriers to natural selection?
    https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/expert-contra-dawkins-why-eugenics-wouldnt-really-work/

    The fact of the matter is that if eugenics is pseudoscience, (and indeed it is “pseudoscience”,)

    Pretty much all of the reasons that he (the expert in genetics) listed for why eugenics, i.e. artificial selection, in humans will not work fits (exactly into) John Sanford’s overall thesis for ‘Genetic Entropy’:
    https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/expert-contra-dawkins-why-eugenics-wouldnt-really-work/#comment-693255

    The fact of the matter is that if eugenics is pseudoscience, (and indeed it is “pseudoscience”), then it necessarily follows that Darwinian evolution itself must be a pseudoscience.

    The two, i.e. eugenics, i.e. artificial selection, and natural selection simply are inseparable in their shared logical structure. In fact, “he (Charles Darwin) devoted almost every bit of his magnum opus (Origin Of Species) to tedious examples of artificial selection in domestic animals. He brushed away the glaring advantage of artificial over natural selection with rhetoric along the lines of “I see no reason why” natural selection might not have fashioned the eye or any other organ or living thing.”

    Someone tries telling the truth: Darwin wasn’t that great but he met an elite need – July 29, 2014
    Excerpt: he (Charles Darwin) devoted almost every bit of his magnum opus (Origin Of Species) to tedious examples of artificial selection in domestic animals. He brushed away the glaring advantage of artificial over natural selection with rhetoric along the lines of “I see no reason why” natural selection might not have fashioned the eye or any other organ or living thing. For such schoolboy ineptitude he was roundly criticized by his contemporaries, all of whom are now consigned to history’s dustbin, regardless of their skills and biological competency.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....lite-need/

    The eugenics link to Darwinian thinking is simple and straightforward, yet Darwinists bend over backwards trying to deny it. Why is that? What could possibly be the benefit for Darwinists in denying such a straight forward and obvious link? It only serves to show people, people who are not so enamored with Darwinism, just how disingenuous Darwinists can be and are with the facts at hand.

  5. 5
    Truthfreedom says:

    @4 Bornagain77:

    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.

    Umm… Darwin and his followers (included dawkins, who is deranged), have a really improved version. Let’s take a look:

    There is neither Meaning nor Purpose, neither good nor bad, nor is there morals and justice, for you are all one in Meaningless.

    What is not to love?

  6. 6
    Truthfreedom says:

    *Meaninglessness.*

  7. 7
    Truthfreedom says:

    @3 Forexhr:
    A very interesting reading. Thank you.
    And this comment is fantastic:

    I am ignorant of Astrology, Moon landing conspiracy theories, modern Flat Earth theory, Hollow Earth theory, Cryptozoology, Numerology and many other pseudosciences. And I am also ignorant of the Theory of evolution. That’s because I deal only with science, reason and logic.

  8. 8
    Jim Thibodeau says:

    A few months ago I read the new Carl Zimmer book, she has her mothers laugh. Whole chapters on things like Galton. That’s awfully weird since we’re trying to hide it so bad.

Leave a Reply