Scientific Certitude 100 years ago

One day, before we have grown to old to notice, Darwinism will have collapsed. It will happen quietly, but one morning Darwinism will be gone. SaintMartinoftheFields

Denise O'Leary: Was the ol’ Brit toff projecting onto “the negro” attitudes that many people of his generation considered improper (but could be safely discussed if projected onto people considered “inferior”?) Dunno That you "dunno" is correct. And one thing that many of us do know is that the quote in the O.P. is from someone writing in an encyclopedia in 1911, and is certainly not an opinion of the "'ol Brit toff". In your posts in relation to Darwin and race on this blog, I've seen no evidence that you've actually read what he wrote on the subject. If you have read it, then you've clearly not understood what you were reading, and I'd be happy to go through it point by point and explain if you find the science difficult. iconofid

Are you aware of the Judge Basile's statement during the Loving vs. Virginia case? He surely didn't need Darwin to be racist. sparc

"[A]fter puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro’s life and thought." interested (Comment 1) is right, of course; After puberty, sexual matters take the first place in EVERYONE'S life and thought, for a while. (That is what puberty IS!) With adulthood come responsibilities (like children). Nothing like a wailing baby to turn one's attention to something other than sex. Was the ol' Brit toff projecting onto "the negro" attitudes that many people of his generation considered improper (but could be safely discussed if projected onto people considered "inferior"?) Dunno. Dr. Freud, meet Mr. Darwin. Mr. Darwin, meet Dr. Freud. I bet you two will find something to talk about over dinner. O'Leary

Merriam-Webster's definition of racism:

racism: 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

And

prejudice 2 a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics

So, in the sense that humans think and preconceive, and to the extent that humans in novel situations will resort to preconceptions, only the comatose exhibit no racism. The best one can hope for is to let his racism do no harm. Indeed, prejudging based on past learning is part of what makes a human a human (although other creatures also exhibit this trait.) As many of you would fear a vicious looking pit-bull, so a person from Nanking educated after the cultural revolution would fear a blue-eyed devil, and loathe the Japanese; and so a person who grew up in a gang ridden neighborhood would know when it's time to cross the street to avoid confrontation with a group of young hoodlums. In the first case, the prejudice is based mostly on propaganda, and perhaps some family experience, while in the second case, based on past real world anecdotal experience deemed to be prudent more often than not. Racial prejudices are normal. Yes, they are most often irrational, but not always. That being said, educated westerners have been programmed to mask or discount such prejudices. Consequently, it would be difficult to find ten evolutionary biologists who have left a paper trail documenting overtly racist viewpoints. Allen_MacNeill's is a loaded challenge. A better question is whether or not evolutionary theory has lent credibility to irrational racism and racist propaganda. Many evolanders claim that evolution is science, but when somebody brings up James Watson, well, he's discounted as a mere scientist, yes, a scientist who made a significant contribution to biology, but a scientist speaking on subjects outside of his area of expertise. And, he is not an evolutionary biologist. Again, loaded challenge. Whether or not evolutionary theory bolsters or fosters racism is a legitimate question, but it is orthogonal to the question of whether extrapolating observed evolution to common descent is scientific, or whether RM+NS is sufficient to explain common descent (if you believe as Behe seems to that man and ape are biological cousins.) Recent history is littered with figures for whom evolutionary theory, racism, and political power reacted synergistically with disastrous consequences. To act as though evolutionary theory were no more consequential to these horrendous episodes than, say the typewriter, is to deny the logical conclusions, obvious direction, and clear language of evolutionary theory. Evolved, adapted, differentiated, trait, etc. William Wallace

In a day when racism is decidedly not de rigueur, it will be natural for Darwinists to disavow it and IDists to point the finger. Instead we need to be aware of the political wind, of the mood of the mob, of current trends. Is racism the problem of the moment? It’s always there, lurking, and vigilance is always in order. But in this day of postmodernist mindlessness, of fawning deference to celebrity, of politically correct indigeneity, might it be reason itself that’s under attack? Witness campus speech codes, the shouting down of contrary ideas, and what issues incite the erudite to obfuscation and bitter name calling. Once again, as in the Thirties, hatred is in the air. For the past decade it has been ubiquitous and palpable as also viscereal and irrational. And because of this I don’t think I need point out the more powerless objects of this hatred. The point is that we need the moral compass to combat it, nip it in the bud before it overwhelms us. Darwinian materialism is not up to the task—in fact I believe it is the cause, or maybe better, the cover. It is because of this that ID is at the forefront of the Kulturkampf. Rude

Racism is an epithet at the apex of the politically correct lexicon. To label someone a racist is to destroy him. And so let’s not let ourselves get into that territory, for it’s not people’s inner motives that interest us. It’s their ideas. And Darwinism is surely a dangerous idea (for which see Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, 1995). Darwinian materialism is dangerous because 1) it is a Theory of Everything which, as Jacques Monod showed, denies purpose by admitting only chance and necessity into the lexicon of explanation, and consequently 2) is utterly ill equipped to speak to moral issues. That does not mean that Darwinists (or atheists) cannot be moral people, it just means that we cannot trust their philosophy to deliver a credible public morality. And, yes, it is also true that those who embrace a right standard of morality don’t always abide by it, even as also there are those of evil motive who may come in the name of a benevolent philosophy. Nothing takes away from the fact that we must try each philosophy as to its ability to deliver the goods. And so I’m with Dave Scott in that we should be careful not to hurl the politically incorrect epithet at PEOPLE, and I’m with Ben Stein in that we must not flinch from pointing out the consequences of IDEAS. It matters not a whit whether Darwin was a “racist” in the modern politically correct sense. What matters is the consequences that his ideas have had in history and whether or not those ideas are adequate to avert the next holocaust. Ideas have consequences, and so not only does the veracity of ideas matter, so do their consequences. Rude

Hermagorus,

Joseph, it’s quite right that race classifications existed outside creationist thinking.

Of course it did.

But the people who said the human races were separate species, such as Linnaeus and Agassiz, happened to be creationists.

And how do you know what non-Creationists said? Where YOU present during EVERY conversation they ever had? Linne said that tghe human races were separate species? Do you have a reference?

So while the idea of human “races” isn’t creationist, the idea “different human race = different species” seems to be. SEEMS TO BE? Translation: DK doesn't have any actual data but propagnda will do.

Joseph

Allen_MacNeill, This thread is about 100 years ago. NOT TODAY. The point being science changes. And in 100 years from now people will look back and laugh at what today's scientific consensus. That is because the theory of evolution is nothing but propaganda. And seeing that you believe that Creation = the fixation of species, I would say the propaganda is working. You talk about evidence and the best you can do is to erect strawman after strawman. Joseph

I don't think the point of this post concerns racism per se, but merely that the "random variation/natural selection" explanation of evolutionary history will look about as asinine 100 years from now as the "scientific" racism of 100 years ago looks today: quaint, clueless, and totally wrong. Matteo

"The theory of evolution is an explanatory theory of nature. It is not about artificial selection." And a poor one at that. Which group of humans is more successful reproductively? Aryan Indians, Mongoloid Chinese, or Causasian American/Europeans/Australians? Let's see now: Indians: 1.1 billion Chinese: 1.3 Billion, Americans/Europeans/Australians: 800 million. So Causasians are currently lagging behind quantitatively. Is it because of their lack of reproductive success, or rather is it due to 'self-selection' acting upon lifestyle variation? That's a hard one. Oramus

Mapou "If a group of individuals within a species are more successful at reproducing, they are clearly superior at it. I realize I am not a brilliant (highly evolved and superior, of course) evolutionary biologist but please do not insult my intelligence with such lame arguments. I don’t insult yours. Do you mean that you would describe those individuals within a species who have the most kids a race? And when nature favours them with selection, is nature racist? The theory of evolution is an explanatory theory of nature. It is not about artificial selection. iconofid

MacNeill:

How do you manage to contort your mind into “increased reproductive success” meaning “superior”?

HAYSOOS Martinez! Are you kidding me or are you just another dishonest evolutionist? If a group of individuals within a species are more successful at reproducing, they are clearly superior at it. I realize I am not a brilliant (highly evolved and superior, of course) evolutionary biologist but please do not insult my intelligence with such lame arguments. I don't insult yours.

Does this lead one to conclude that horseshoe crabs are somehow “superior” to humans?

Have you stopped beating your wife, too? Mapou

Sigh, I miss real ID topics. SCheesman

go ahead, Mapou, just make your unsupported assertion all over again, without citing evidence. I'm finished with this thread. "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Friedrich Schiller (1801), Die Jungfrau von Orleans, Act III, sc. vi (Anna Swanwick, trans.) Allen_MacNeill

What books have you been reading, Mapou? In all of the evolutionary biology textbooks I've read (including the one I'm currently writing)"fitness" is clearly defined as "increased reproductive success". How do you manage to contort your mind into "increased reproductive success" meaning "superior"? Every evolutionary biologist for the past fifty years has been very clear on this point: nothing in evolutionary biology leads one to conclude that one species (or whatever taxon you wish to cite) is "superior" or "inferior". As just one example, it is clear that horseshoe crabs (Limulus polyphemus) are an unusually "successful" taxon. They have existed almost unchanged (and in great abundance) for almost 500 million years (i.e. about 100 times longer than humans). Does this lead one to conclude that horseshoe crabs are somehow "superior" to humans? Don't be ridiculous. The idea that certain taxa are "superior" or "inferior" are not part of evolutionary biology. They are, quite simply, political concepts, invented by politicians in the pursuit of political ends. Allen_MacNeill

Mapou "You have not refuted anything. You are brilliant only in your own mind. If a species survives through natural selection, it follows that some members of the species will be inferior (in terms of fitness) and others superior. This is evolution 101. And this is where the racist conclusions come from. Like it or lump it." Ah! Now individuals are races, are they? And in order for natural selection to be guilty of "racism" against these individuals, nature must be sentient. Wow. So that's how an I.D. advocate thinks! Did you know that Darwin was actually one of the first people to question the existence of "race" in humans, as most people understand it? He called it "so called race". Also, do you think that Darwin was responsible for Plato's eugenics? iconofid

MacNeill, Wrestling with a strawman of your own making, I see. Why don't you respond directly to my argument instead beating around the bush? I don't think I argued anywhere that evolution leads to individuals or nations becoming racists. I believe that children are not as knowledgeable as adults and yet I harbor neither condescension nor ill will toward children. I don't expect evolutionists to automatically harbor ill will toward certain races because evolution teaches that they are inferior to others in as far as their ability to compete for resources is concerned. My argument is that evolution does teach that individual members within a species compete for resources and that natural selection favors those who are more successful. This immediately leads to the conclusion that subgroups within a species or entire species will be more or less adept at competing against other groups. That is what fitness and selection are all about. How can selection work if it does not discriminate? Fitness means superiority and it further means that some subgroups (races) are more or less superior than others. This is the definition of racism that is being employed in this discussion, right? Deny at your own detriment. If fitness is not part of evolutionary theory, then you and I have been reading the wrong books. Mapou

Allen wrote,

"Ergo, Mapou and all of the other anti-Darwinists at this website have utterly failed to produce the name of even one contemporary evolutionary biologist who is on record as supporting any form of racism whatsoever."

The point that Mapou is making is that the notion of natural selection says that the world governs what is worthy and not worthy of survival based upon their attributes and their relation to their enviornment. Of course one of the most common ways to corrolate natural selection with living things is by grouping them in races. Hence there is a nation of natural racism embedded into the mechanism of natural selection. Now it is important to note that NS is just one side of the evolutionary coin- the other side is the random mutation part. However at times it can become difficult to determine what is random from what is non random- for example certain species and races have certain kinds of mutations that are likely or common to them- but within that race there maybe no way to know exactly which individuals will get the mutation and which ones will avoid it. So the idea of random mutation is a grey area- ultimately natural selection decides which groups are worthy of going on. While mutations are absolutly necessary to create any speciation they may not be directly realted to the decision of which species live on or die off. This does bring up the interesting idea of how a random mutation that kills off a species might be viewed... would that mutation be viewed as simply a random mutation or also as an act of "natural selection"? Obviously Obviously those two mechanisms while powerful are not isolated from the totality of the evolutionary reality- the point being that there can not be any "explanation" which fully explains and encompasses all of the evolutionary phenomena into a predictable formula- hence the need for the term "random." But my point is that the random mechanism of evolution IS a raciest one. It is not exclusively raciest but as a general statement it tends to eliminate races. No the beleif in the evolutionary synthesis does not require that a person must be raciest themselves- but it does require that they admit that the evolutionary reality of the world that they live in and take part in is generally raciest- and that leaves open the possibility they they themselves may be inherently raciest beyond any choice since NS and RM within the evolutionary framework work within the human race themselves- that is there is nothing in the modern synthesis that excludes man from its principles. So depending on how one defines "species" and "races" it is important to note that evolution tends to discriminate among them and that man kind is part of the evolutionary model. However if you believe in intelligent design that leaves open the possibility- though reason- that man can go against the grain- that man is ultimately chosen for this purpose- because ultimately there is a greater purpose than the impersonal system of modern evolutionary theory. Frost122585

My goodness, Mapou, but you are persistent. Okay, if evolutionary biology leads directly to racism, then those populations in which evolutionary biology began and in which they have flourished should be the most racist, right? Furthermore, since (as most anti-"Darwinists" argue, evolutionary thought is becoming more and more widespread, the longer a population has accepted evolutionary theory, the more racist it should be. So, let's make another list. This time, it's nations that have become more racist since evolutionary biology has become accepted by its scientists: Germany (up until 1945, but not since then) Japan (up until 1945, but not since then) Hmm. Okay, how about those countries that have become less racist since the publication of Darwin's Descent of Man in 1871 (major countries only, to preserve bandwidth): Australia Austria (especially after 1945) Belgium Canada China Czechoslovakia Denmark England Finland (especially after 1945) France Georgia Greece Hungary Iceland India Ireland Italy (especially after 1945) Mexico The Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugul Spain (especially after 1945) Sweden Switzerland Russia (formerly the USSR) Almost all of South America (Argentina is an ambiguous case) Ukraine The Union of South Africa The United States of America Conspicuously absent from this list are most of the nations of Africa, southeast Asia, and most nations in which Islam is the dominant religion. Odd, that last part; I thought that most Muslims were creationists? Does this mean that creationism (especially the Muslim version) necessarily predisposes people to racism? Anyway, Mapou's assertion (and that's all it is) has once again been shown to have no evidence at all behind it, whereas the opposite assertion (actually, it's a testable hypothesis) is supported by the evidence. Thanks, Mapou, for once again demonstrating the complete intellectual bankruptcy of your position, and for flushing all of your supporters out of the cracks in the floor. One wonders if you might not be a double-agent for the other side... Allen_MacNeill

Kellogg, You have not refuted anything. You are brilliant only in your own mind. If a species survives through natural selection, it follows that some members of the species will be inferior (in terms of fitness) and others superior. This is evolution 101. And this is where the racist conclusions come from. Like it or lump it. Mapou

Mapou,

You’re jumping on a strawman and too quick to declare victory

You asked me to "refute" your "argument" and now, when I do, you back away from any connection between your own contiguous sentences. Apparently I was taking your notion of "refutation" seriously. In truth, you have not offered any argument worth refuting, merely a necklace of anecdotal beads strung together by leaps of faith and unwarranted assumptions. David Kellogg

@ Allen, I know you have borne the brunt of grossly unfair insults from a particular former contributor here, but I wonder if you appreciate the irony of his ultimately futile attempt to halt this unfortunate descent into , well, this current antithesis of reason. Arthur Smith

Kellogg:

If human races are not species, as they are not in Darwin or in evolutionary biology writ large, then the sentence “Does not evolution teach that the species struggle or compete for survival?” does not apply to human races. You can’t substitute “human races” for “species” on a whim. What is so hard to understand about that?

You're jumping on a strawman and too quick to declare victory. The fact is that evolution not only teaches that species compete for survival and resources but so do the individual members within every species. In fact, natural selection acts within species through normal procreation. Mapou

mapou

Isn’t racism the assumption that some races are superior?

and

Refute that and I’ll shut up.

Presumably anybody who understood "evolution" would realise that there is only one "race" or "species" of human and as such racism based on such percieved differences is not based on "evolution", but rather an incomplete or invalid understand of evolution. So, misunderstanding evolution might lead to racism but if you have a correct understanding of it it will not. George L Farquhar

And, for the record, let's all agree shall we that this thread represents the core argument of ID: propaganda, pure and simple. No arguments about evidence, no arguments about science, no recognition at all that ID was supposed to be a revision of evolutionary theory, not its replacement, and (most of all) that virtually all of ID "theory" consists of arguments by assertion, character assassination, guilt by association, and ad hominem attacks. Thank you all, and especially thank you, Denise, for making all of this so very, very clear! Allen_MacNeill

Icd:

Perhaps we should stop trying to tar and feather the science community as there are far too many Christians who do not act in a Christian manner at all.

Both so-called Christians and so-called scientists need to be tarred and feathered, in my opinion. The point that I am making is that, given the evidence, one cannot make the case that the Bible advocates racism (the opposite is the truth as shown by countless examples in these discussions and elsewhere), whereas one can certainly make the case that evolution leads to racism as a consequence of its fundamental principles re the struggle for survival among organisms (even and especially within species). Neo-evolutionary thought does not erase those basic evolutionary principles, as far as I know. Mapou

Oops again, typing and pasting too fast and getting doubles sorry y'all Borne

There is plenty of discussion about the science here, just not on this thread.

Indeed, this thread

has been a marathon of discovery about Dawkins and his "weasel" program. As always, you can be relied on for an incisive comment, Jerry.

Arthur Smith

Mapou, Here is one of many possible refutations: If human races are not species, as they are not in Darwin or in evolutionary biology writ large, then the sentence "Does not evolution teach that the species struggle or compete for survival?" does not apply to human races. You can't substitute "human races" for "species" on a whim. What is so hard to understand about that? David Kellogg

Seversky:

Here’s a question: assuming we are all the product of Intelligent Design, is racism part of the Designer’s purpose or is it a flaw in the Design that was missed?

Now if that isn't the dumbest question ever written here....! All you're doing is implying that racism is part of the design rather than a choice made by free moral agents who are the designed. Utter codswallop. As you dig yourselves in deeper and deeper into attempts at saving poor Darwin from shame and pretending there is are no racist logical implications in his original theory at least, you're becoming more and more blinded to reason. This is not a contest to see how many racist Darwinists vs IDists or creationists you can pull out of your hat. Seversky:

Here’s a question: assuming we are all the product of Intelligent Design, is racism part of the Designer’s purpose or is it a flaw in the Design that was missed?

Now if that isn't the dumbest question ever written here....! All you're doing is implying that racism is part of the design rather than a choice made by free moral agents who are the designed. Utter codswallop. As you dig yourselves in deeper and deeper into attempts at saving poor Darwin from shame and pretending there is are no racist logical implications in his original theory at least, you're becoming more and more blinded to reason. This is not a contest to see how many racist Darwinists vs IDists or creationists you can pull out of your hat. It's a question of logical implications of a theory - period. It's a question of logical implications of a theory - period. Borne

MacNeill wrote:

In #29 Mapou wrote: “The truth is that the theory of evolution directly leads to racism. Only a dishonest person would deny this obvious fact.” No, only a dishonest person would try to make that argument. You have been shown multiple examples of exactly the opposite

I haven't seen any valid argument that showed that evolution does not directly lead to racism. I am still waiting for a valid counter argument to my argument:

Personally, I don’t see why it is so hard for anybody to admit that racism is a logical consequence of the theory of evolution. Does not evolution teach that the species struggle or compete for survival? Isn’t it obvious that, assuming that there is some sort of competition between groups, at least one group is going to be superior or inferior to the others? Isn’t racism the assumption that some races are superior?

Refute that and I'll shut up. Mapou

Borne [54], why blame Allen for missing a point when this whole line of discussion is both pointless and ugly? David Kellogg

"This is incredibly disheartening. I was hoping to find credible research that backs up ID as a viable and testable science. So far, I have not seen any. The thing I find most disheartening is that it seems that the best ID research can do is cast dispersions on people born 200 years ago." That is a silly comment. There is plenty of discussion about the science here, just not on this thread. Your comment means you just are not reading so appears to be disingenuous. jerry

Sorry Allen, you're still missing the whole point. Borne

OOppps s I meant to write even polygenic does NOT force one to be a racist in heart. sorry Borne

Seversky:

Here’s a question: assuming we are all the product of Intelligent Design, is racism part of the Designer’s purpose or is it a flaw in the Design that was missed?

As far as I understand it, the Designer only designed the original genes and the mechanisms of micro-evolution. Human spirits (the only things that can be said to have morality) were not designed or created, nor did they evolve. They just are. At least, this is my Christian take on it. Mapou

In #29 Mapou wrote:

"The truth is that the theory of evolution directly leads to racism. Only a dishonest person would deny this obvious fact."

No, only a dishonest person would try to make that argument. You have been shown multiple examples of exactly the opposite and continue to use character assassinatin, guilt by association, and ad hominem assertions, rather than evidence to support your dishonest and morally bankrupt claims. Mapou has cited as evidence for its claim two molecular biologists: Francis Crick and James Watson, neither of whom are evolutionary biologists, nor are recognized by the scientific community as having spent their whole lives studying evolution. On the contrary, Francis Crick is on public record as vigorously opposing the basic principles of the "modern evolutionary synthesis" (often referred to on this website as "neo-darwinism"). Crick, along with Leslie Orgel, proposed an alternative theory called "directed panspermia", which essentially is one of the versions of "intelligent design" cited by Dr. William Dembski as an explanation for the origin of "complex specified information" (i.e. it was seeded on Earth by aliens). Ergo, Mapou and all of the other anti-Darwinists at this website have utterly failed to produce the name of even one contemporary evolutionary biologist who is on record as supporting any form of racism whatsoever. But, since it is clear that they don't actually know the names of any contemporary evolutionary biologists (nor any others except, perhaps, Darwin), here's a list for them to check out: Richard D. Alexander G. Archdall Reid Wallace Arthur Francis Maitland Balfour Nick Barton Graham Bell Paul M. Bingham John Tyler Bonner Roy John Britten John Brookfield James J. Bull Leo Buss Alexey Bystrow William H. Cade Arthur Cain Sean B. Carroll Thomas Cavalier-Smith Brian Charlesworth Deborah Charlesworth Edouard Chatton Jens Clausen Richard G. Colling Henry Crampton Richard Dawkins Gavin de Beer Jared Diamond Theodosius Dobzhansky Russell Doolittle Dronamraju Krishna Rao Robin Dunbar A. W. F. Edwards Niles Eldredge Michael S. Engel Eske Willerslev Joseph Felsenstein Ronald A. Fisher W. Tecumseh Fitch William Henry Flower Robert Foley E. B. Ford Steven Frank Douglas J. Futuyma Raghavendra Gadagkar Walter Garstang John H. Gillespie Tijs Goldschmidt Morris Goodman Edwin Stephen Goodrich Stephen Jay Gould Alan Grafen Bruce Grant Peter and Rosemary Grant T. Ryan Gregory William King Gregory David Haig J. B. S. Haldane W. D. Hamilton Albany Hancock Ilkka Hanski Paul H. Harvey Paul D. N. Hebert Willi Hennig David Hillis Lancelot Hogben Julian Huxley Eva Jablonka Olivia Judson Thomas H. Jukes Laurent Keller Motoo Kimura Jack Lester King Mary-Claire King Nicole King Alexey Kondrashov Gert Korthof David Lack Marion J. Lamb Ray Lankester Antonio Lazcano Colin Leakey Richard Lenski Wen-Hsiung Li Michael Lynch Johnjoe McFadden Gustave Malécot Marcus Thomas Pius Gilbert Lynn Margulis William F. Martin John Maynard Smith Ernst W. Mayr Konstantin Mereschkowski Michael F. Whiting Kenneth R. Miller Martin Moynihan Fritz Müller PZ Myers Adolf Naef Randolph M. Nesse Alfred Newton Glenn Northcutt Martin Nowak Susumu Ohno Tomoko Ohta H. Allen Orr Dan Otte Geoff Parker George and Elizabeth Peckham Marcus Pembrey Philip D. Gingerich Eric Pianka Massimo Pigliucci Hendrik Poinar Edward Bagnall Poulton William B. Provine David C. Queller Bernhard Rensch Roderic D.M. Page Michael R. Rose Noah Rosenberg Graeme Ruxton Elisabet Sahtouris Barbara A. Schaal Dolph Schluter Ivan Ivanovich Schmalhausen David Seaborg Beth Shapiro Philip Sheppard Neil Shubin G. Ledyard Stebbins David Stenhouse Joan E. Strassmann John Struthers Robert Trivers Peter Turchin Göte Turesson James W. Valentine Leigh Van Valen Herbert E. Walter John Jenner Weir Walter Frank Raphael Weldon Stuart West Robert Wiedersheim George C. Williams Allan Wilson David Sloane Wilson Edward O. Wilson Sewall Wright Amotz Zahavi Avishag Zahavi Emile Zuckerkandl Derrick Zwickl Some of the evolutionary biologists on this list are dead, but virtually all of them lived during the 20th century (many are still practicing today), and all of them have biographies at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Evolutionary_biologists So, get started! Find ten people on this list who would qualify as "racists" by any reasonable definition of that term. You know what, I know that extended intellectual effort comes hard to some of you, so I'll get you started. Here's one: John Philippe Rushton, currently at the University of Western Ontario. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton Except that he's not really an evolutionary biologist, he's a psychologist, and not everyone would classify him as a clear-cut racist, but I'll stretch the definition enough to get you started. So, only nine to go. And, while you're at it, perhaps some of the other readers of this thread might like to make a similar list of racists who base their views on Christianity. Except that would be too easy; I was able to do it with one click on the web: Herbert W. Armstrong Richard Girnt Butler San Jacinto Capt Bertrand Comparet David Duke William Potter Gale Robert Jay Mathews Dennis McGiffen Howard Rand Oral Roberts Sr. George Lincoln Rockwell Gerald L. K. Smith Wesley Swift Siener van Rensburg Oops, that's fourteen, not ten. And I spent almost no time searching. In fact, almost all of these were right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity And all of them have individual biographies at Wikipedia as well. Let the games begin! CURRENT SCORE: Racist Christians = 14 Racist evolutionary biologists = 1 (sort of) Allen_MacNeill

I posted on the skepticism thread about KF's refusal to admit defeat in the face of overwhelming evidence. The discussion here has a similar pattern: make evolution racist, facts be damned. David Kellogg

Ah, but that wouldn’t be anywhere near as effective as propaganda as the assertion that “all Darwinists are gutter racists until proven otherwise” would it?

I don't think that's the point, and I doubt that anyone here believes that Darwinists are more likely to be racists. It's only to say that dogma sometimes masquerades as science. But I do notice that it's very popular in the press to emphasize how close we are genetically to apes. So a layman does not know what to make of this. On the one hand we need to remember who our primitive ancestors were when we imagine we're "special". But on the other hand, we're supposed to keep in mind that people from various isolated populations are really no different in any important way. And isn't it possible or even likely that we might be different in some important way that hasn't occured to anyone? Shouldn't we go find additional data instead of just being politically correct? Or do we know everything about human racial/gender differences that we need to know? If so, who decides what we "need to know"? russ

Here's a question: assuming we are all the product of Intelligent Design, is racism part of the Designer's purpose or is it a flaw in the Design that was missed? And a supplementary: if we cannot say anything about the nature of the Designer, how can we ever know which it is? If, for example, it were decided that racism was part of the Designer's otherwise inscrutable purpose, would that make racism moral or do we allow that the Designer is capable of error and that we cannot draw any conclusions about morality from the nature of the Design? Seversky

Well, after the debacle I have just watched on this site, one wonders whither Intelligent Design now? Arthur Smith

Joseph, it's quite right that race classifications existed outside creationist thinking. But the people who said the human races were separate species, such as Linnaeus and Agassiz, happened to be creationists. So while the idea of human "races" isn't creationist, the idea "different human race = different species" seems to be. David Kellogg

Here's the facts: The original Darwinism was polygenic - multiple rates and/or origins of evolution per race, thus necessitating a racist view of humanity. There's no way out of it. Neo-Darwinism claims to be monogenic - thus it doesn't have the same racist implications. The whole point, consistently missed by Dave, McNeill and most so many others, is that some ideas are inherently prone to racism and others are not. Original Darwinism is, neo-Darwinism much less so. Polygenic Darwinism intrinsically means that some races are more evolved than others. That's what it is by definition, and so it's necessarily racist prone. Monogenic neo-Darwinism does not. Monogenic Darwinism does not support multiple origins for the human race as does polygenic Darwinism. Some of todays Darwinists are still polygenic supporters - probably because they were already racist and are looking for justification. I'm really sorry so many, persistently and adamantly refuse to see the difference between a 'scientific' ideology that implies some form of racism by it's very nature, and the fact that anyone of any persuasion can be a racist. Huge difference. Darwin didn't invent racism. But his theory gave it some 'scientific' basis. There is also the fact that no one who believes in an inherently racist-prone ideology is required to be racist. Darwinism, even polygenic does force one to be a racist in heart. Let's not forget that religious bigotry is also a form of racism. Racism is rooted in pride and fear, not ideologies. Ideologies may just provide a 'scientific' or philosophical basis of support for it. Most Darwinist never even notice the logical connection between polygenic evolution theory and racism. Probably because they're so busy chasing their tails trying to save Darwinism from extinction that they never sit down to even look at the facts or think anything through objectively. The historical and logical link between polygenic Darwinism (not Darwin himself) and the 'final solution' - genocide against the supposed 'sub-human', less evolved and therefore unfavored races, for example, is so clear only fools refuse to see it. That doesn't mean Darwins ideas were entirely responsible. Darwins theory-based prediction of the eventual extermination of blacks by whites may have played a role as well. And no wonder! Christianity and racism? Sorry but there is no link. A single text - "All races of one blood" - destroys any attempts to make links. And many other texts can be cited. Does that mean no Christians have racist ideas? I'm sorry to have to say, "No". But they certainly didn't get it from Christ or his teachings! Indeed, Moses was married to a black woman and Boaz was married to a Moabite - a darker skinned race. One of the 1st 'gentile' converts to Christianity was an Ethiopian noble. It's all just melanin anyway! Unfortunately, anyone can be a racist, in spite of what they claim to believe. The roots of racism are not in ideologies or science - though some ideologies and some theories support it - but in human arrogance and fear. Racism is often passed from parents to children by example and word. We need to work together to stamp it out in all cases. Borne

Joseph, So race was used for classification and not by Creationists That seems to have been made not by science, but by people who already had it in their mind to put people into groups. Be very careful. Many Christians in the US South had "classifications" for the different races. 150 years ago, people were classified into "masters" and "slaves". I fear that the further digging into the idea that Darwin was a racist (and from a 21st Century POV he could be considered that) as it can be shown that religion was even more misused that science when it came to "race". Again, I stress that the SBC came into existence as it tried to give slavery biblical support. lcd

Hermagorus, Check this out:

There has been an interesting dialectic between the notion of human races and the use of race as a general biological category. Historically, the concept of race was imported into biology, and not only the biology of the human species, from social practice. The consciousness that human beings come in distinct varieties led, in the history of biology, to the construction of “race” as a subgrouping within species. For a long time the category “race” was a standard taxonomic level.

From: Confusions About Human Races So race was used for classification and not by Creationists Joseph

Kellogg @ 33:

Neither Watson nor Crick had much understanding of evolution,

In other words, you're saying that only evolutionary biologists can understand evolution because understanding the basic tenets of evolution requires many years of study at a university? What is so hard about understanding that living organisms compete for survival and resources, and that only those who are better (read superior) at it thrive? Does this not imply superiority of some groups and of subgroups? Isn't that what racism is about, superiority? What is there that requires one to have the IQ of a rocket scientist to figure out? Why do some scientists have to be so pompous and condescending as if only they have a monopoly on intelligence? Mapou

I don't believe that humanity has different species either. But I do know that many Christians in the US 150 years ago did. Very religious men like John C. Calhoun and others from the US south spoke at length about the "inferiority of the negro". These men were not Darwinists and believe in the literal creation. They also believe in Ham and his "mark" that was left to his descendants. Darwin I think was considered "far too liberal" for men like Calhoun. Wouldn't it be better to conclude that racism is actually more a form of Xenophobia? As to some in the science being tainted with racism, I heartily agree. The problem is there are those who profess to be Christian, follow Our Lord Jesus and yet still demonize others for the colour of their skin. Seems that it is people who are racists and religion and science, just as any other tool, can be misused by anyone with a point of view they want to expose. lcd

Alas, Mapou, your understanding of history is poor: as I said, creationists such as Agassiz argued that races were different species, and Darwin said they were all one species. You may decide that "species" means what you say, not what it has meant historically, but that only makes you like Humpty Dumpty in conversation with Alice:

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' " "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is, " said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty. "which is to be master—that's all."

David Kellogg

The idea that the human race comprises many species is a creationist idea.

Minor correction: Perhaps some Creationists had that idea but it is not an idea borne from Creation(ism). And besides "racism" has "evolved" into "profiling". Joseph

That's funny. I believe in both creation (intelligent design) and micro evolution (the designed kind) over hundreds of millions of years and yet, I don't believe for one second that humans consist of different species. On the contrary, I would argue that it is evolutionists who teach that slight variations between related animals mean that they are different species. Mapou

Mapou, Actually Kellogg did take your argument to the cleaners and absolutely destroyed it. He was not only able to refute what you stated but as you have not been able to counter that it would seem as though your comment was wrong. While I'd love to see Darwinists taken to task, only when we on the ID side are able to show them where their ideas are wrong and maintain it will they have to look at their own pigheadedness and fallacies. Otherwise it is the ID side that looks foolish. lcd

Kellogg, Well, now that you have utterly refuted my argument with your brilliant counter argument (in your own mind, that is), I will leave it at that. Mapou

One reason (among many) it is incoherent: Darwin held that the human race was one species, not many. The idea that the human race comprises many species is a creationist idea. And no, you did not "point to a couple of highly intelligent people who had a superior understanding of evolution and who used their understanding to arrive at racist views." Neither Watson nor Crick had much understanding of evolution, and neither contributed to evolutionary biology beyond a single sentence (the last sentence of their 1953 DNA paper). Further, you don't know when they arrived at views on race, which are likely -- like most views on race -- to have been acquired in childhood. So say such views are a "consequence" of evolution is, I repeat, ridiculous. David Kellogg

Mapou,

The truth is that the theory of evolution directly leads to racism. Only a dishonest person would deny this obvious fact.

Well I deny it, because it's not a fact at all, much less an obvious one. Repeating your earlier posts will not make it more coherent. David Kellogg

Mapou, that's ridiculous. As has been demonstrated here, just to pick a few points: racism preceded Darwin by a long shot; Darwin was far less racist than his creationist contemporaries such as Agassiz, who thought the races were separate species; people have historically justified racism by all sorts of means, including appealing to Christianity. Pointing to a couple of racist scientists (who were not evolutionary biologists) says literally nothing about what evolutionary thinking leads to. If you don't know that, you don't understand anything about how to argue about cause and effect. Moderators: if I seem intemperate, note that Mapou called me a liar in [29], so I have a legitimate right of disdainful response. David Kellogg

Kellogg, my point is that highly intelligent people in the scientific community who studied evolution their entire lives came to racist conclusions. It's not hard to understand why. The truth is that the theory of evolution directly leads to racism. Only a dishonest person would deny this obvious fact. Mapou

Mapou, you answered a question about "ten contemporary evolutionary biologists" with a response naming two people, one of whom was definitely not an evolutionary biologist. If we stretch a bit we can include Crick as an evolutionary biologist. That makes nine to go. (For the record, I think Crick's views have little if anything to do with Darwin. They remind me of the xenophobia characteristic of white right-wingers everywhere. Remember the image of the welfare queen with a lot of kids?) David Kellogg

Kellog @ 25:

Watson is not an evolutionary biologist. Also, Crick and Watson are different people. What is your evidence against Crick?

Well, Crick was a known proponent of eugenics (look it up) and believed that rich people are inherently superior and should be encouraged to have more children. It follows that he also believed that, since the rich nations of the world are overwhemingly caucasian and/or asian, that the poor nations (mostly black) should be encouraged to have fewer children. Eugenics is racism, pure and simple, a rose by any other name and all that jazz. On a different note, should one believe only what evolutionary biologists say about evolution? What about evolutionary psychologists or computer scientists who experiment with evolutionary algorithms? Is evolution such an obscure science that only a few super smart specialists can understand its basic principles? Or are you imlying that Watson and Crick were both clueless with regard to evolution? Mapou

TCS: "I think the Darwinists here are missing the point entirely. The “scientific” method used by the Darwinist who wrote that Britannica entry did not likely differ much from the “scientific” methods used by many Darwinists today (i.e., the method of imagination)." Speaking of imagination, the person who wrote the Britannica entry couldn't have been a "Darwinist". Darwin thought that it was impossible to classify human races by character scientifically. He explained that taxonomists only classify by characteristics that are common to the entire group being described. He then claimed that when people tried to generalize about the character of any racial group, it was always immediately easy to see exceptions, making such classifications impossible. He didn't think that human races needed classification anyway because they were all one species according to the data that he had analysed. When he said this, there were many people who considered some of the races to be separate species from the rest of us. Many of these were creationists who considered some groups to be separately created "kinds", and not the descendents of Adam and Eve. Darwin's scientific research led him to believe that not only had all humans descended from the same group, but that in their spread around the world and development of different looks that we associate with race, they had remained very much one species. I'll go into the technical side of his research if anyone is interested, but some here need to actually know what his (typically thoughtful and tentative) views on race were. iconofid

Watson is not an evolutionary biologist. Also, Crick and Watson are different people. What is your evidence against Crick? David Kellogg

MacNeil @ 11

Three threads ago on this subject I asked the anti-”Darwinist” commentators at this website to name ten contemporary evolutionary biologists who were clearly racists, and to document their racism. To date, not one of the anti-”Darwinists” here have done so.

Well, one can point to Nobel Laureate and co-discoverers of the double helix, Crick and Watson. This is a known fact. Are they contemporary enough or are they considered old school? One can only guess that many evolutionary biologists harbor the same views but are afraid to publish them for fear of being ostracized. Personally, I don't see why it is so hard for anybody to admit that racism is a logical consequence of the theory of evolution. Does not evolution teach that the species struggle or compete for survival? Isn't it obvious that, assuming that there is some sort of competition between groups, at least one group is going to be superior or inferior to the others? Isn't racism the assumption that some races are superior? That very smart and famous evolutionary biologists in the business have expressed racist views is no big surprise, in my opinion. Mapou

the christian science monitor: who reads that? wonderdog

Madsen @ 16

OT: What happened to yesterday’s post by Mr Arrington on shadow life? Has the database been corrupted?

Yes, what happened? We were having good fun speculating about alien life visiting Earth. Seversky

In The Mismeasure of Man (1981), Gould directly confronted the reality and impact of racist attitudes within biology and anthropology. The example I recall (I can't find my copy and it's been years since I read it) was his recounting of attempts to measure the cranial capacity of persons of various races by filling skulls with sand, then measuring the volume of sand obtained. The biases and expectations of the researchers resulted in their apparently unconscious manipulation of the results as they tamped just a bit more sand into the skulls of individuals known to be Caucasian. That said, Gould exemplifies a prominent evolutionary scientist directly and forthrightly confronting and discrediting such racist biases, which were obviously widespread in the culture and actually served to undermine the conduct of science. Scientific methodology has obviously become more sophisticated since that time, as exemplified by the recognition of the value of researchers being blind to the classification of the samples being measured. Reciprocating_Bill

You don't need to go back 100 years to find racism and you don't need Darwin either. This is less than 10 years ago, a quote from The Christian Science Monitor

Barry Black, a Klan leader who is appealing his Virginia cross burning conviction has described cross burning as "a very sacred ritual. "We don't light [the cross] to desecrate it," he told the Roanoke Times in 1999. "We light it to show that Christ is still alive." The burning symbolizes the "burning away of evil."

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. DaveScot

I think Barry's point is science does change and in 100 years from now people will look back at this period and say can you believe what those nutters called science? Joseph

Sorry I miss typed: What came first denunciation of racial implications of evolution based on moral obligations or Gould’s empirical support to “restore” the status of some races on earth? mullerpr

Allen, Talking about spin doctors. I have always admired Stephen Jay Gould, for his efforts to spin the Darwinian issues with the "Cambrian explosion" into punctuated equilibrium. Gould's "kung fu" was good... but not good enough. What came first denunciation of racial implications of evolution based on empirical evidence or Gould's empirical support to "restore" the status of some races on earth? mullerpr

Hey Barry, The Klan just called. They want to know if you're interested in writing for them. DaveScot

OT: What happened to yesterday's post by Mr Arrington on shadow life? Has the database been corrupted? madsen

BTW, for those of you who don't know, Stephen Jay Gould was an evolutionary biologist. Allen_MacNeill

Except that only testable theories that are backed by evidence tend to survive scrutiny by other scientists.

This racism was not debunked by scientists. It was outmoded by moralists. bb

Arthur, Your blind faith in the scientific peer review system is admirable. The point remains that there is hardly any review system that can rectify the effect of a faulty ideology like naturalism. This Britannica entry is a case in point and since the ideology has not change we are today looking at fantasies about birds and wales. Simply because there is now a moral ideology that is buffering the aboriginal peoples of the world from evolutionary fantasies or curses... (take a pick). mullerpr

I have a complete set of the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica in my library. The quotations listed above are from Volume XIX, pages 344 to 345 (an article entitled "Negro"). The principle author of this article was Joseph Deniker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Deniker), author of many books on human "races", most notably The Races of Man, published in 1900. According to his biography (also in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume VIII, page 21) Deniker was trained as an engineer, not a "Darwinist". To be specific, he received his undergraduate training in engineering at the university and technical institute of St. Petersburg, specializing in petroleum engineering. After spending several years doing petroleum exploration (mostly in Russia and the far east), he settled in Paris, where he earned a second degree at the Sorbonne in "natural science" (what we would now call "natural history"). Anyone conversant with the history of evolutionary theory at that time would be aware that the theory of evolution taught at the Sorbonne was Lamarck's, not Darwin's, as French scientists did not generally adopt "Darwinist" theories of evolution until the middle of the 20th century. Ergo, the assertion by TCS in #9:

"The “scientific” method used by the Darwinist who wrote that Britannica entry did not likely differ much from the “scientific” methods used by many Darwinists today (i.e., the method of imagination)."

is a gross distortion, based on TCS's biased and completely uninformed view of what evolutionary theory consists of. Furthermore, what exactly is the point of extracting these quotes from an encyclopedia written a century ago? To show, perhaps, that a century ago some scientists had a "racist" viewpoint, especially about the "Negro race"? Here's how the article on the "Negro race" ends in the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (pg. 349):

"The Negroes in the United States have played and are playing an important and necessary part in the industrial and economic life of the southern states....But this life was changing with marvellous [sic] rapidity, becoming less simple, less agricultural and patriarchal, more manufacturing and commercial, more strenuous and complex. It is too early to say whether the negroes would be given an equal or a fair opportunity to show that they could be as serviceable or more serviceable in such a civilization as they had been in that which was passing away, and whether the race would show itself able to accept and improve such chances as were afforded, and to remain in the future under these changing circumstances, as they had been in the past, a vital and essential part of the life of the nation."[Emphasis added]

Hardly a ringing assertion of the kind of racist viewpoint most of the anti-"Darwinist" commentators on previous threads on this subject attribute to "Darwinists" of this period, is it? What anti-"Darwinists" consistently fail to understand (probably because they have virtually no understanding of the history of science) is that science (unlike religion) changes over time (indeed, it "evolves") as the result of new empirical research and interpretation. Yes, Darwin and most of his contemporaries were racist viewed by today's standards. No evolutionary biologists of whom I am aware would dispute that conclusion. But, that's not the question. The question (clearly stated in assertions by various anti-"Darwinists" on previous threads on this subject) is "Are evolutionary biologists today racists?" And the obvious answer (both by implication and direct assertion) has very clearly been "yes". Three threads ago on this subject I asked the anti-"Darwinist" commentators at this website to name ten contemporary evolutionary biologists who were clearly racists, and to document their racism. To date, not one of the anti-"Darwinists" here have done so. Wouldn't you think they would jump at this chance to prove their point that "all Darwinists are racists" and "'Darwinism' is an inherently and inevitably racist theory"? They haven't done this, and that fact in and of itself demonstrates that their "arguments" are based on nothing more than character assassination, guilt by association, and ad hominem arguments. How many more threads like this are you folks going to post? Has Uncommon Descent become the full-time "Darwinists are racists" website? If so, then at least pay at least a nodding respect to the historical evidence and assert that "by the standards of the 21st century many "Darwinists" of a century ago were racists" and then go on to point out that even some of them believed that "It is too early to say whether the negroes would be given an equal or a fair opportunity to show that they could be as serviceable or more serviceable in such a civilization as they had been in that which was passing away..." Ah, but that wouldn't be anywhere near as effective as propaganda as the assertion that "all Darwinists are gutter racists until proven otherwise" would it? Allen_MacNeill

I think the Darwinists here are missing the point entirely. The “scientific” method used by the Darwinist who wrote that Britannica entry did not likely differ much from the “scientific” methods used by many Darwinists today (i.e., the method of imagination).

You glean that from the OP? I guess "Darwinists" might say that they limit themselves to evidence-supported theories that can be repeated in peer-reviewed publications, but may give way to flights of fancy at other times.

In other words, they imagine something and then state it as a fact. So, yes, the focus of imaginary just so stories of Darwinists changes over time, but that can hardly be considered “how science works.”

Except that only testable theories that are backed by evidence tend to survive scrutiny by other scientists. Arthur Smith

I think the Darwinists here are missing the point entirely. The "scientific" method used by the Darwinist who wrote that Britannica entry did not likely differ much from the "scientific" methods used by many Darwinists today (i.e., the method of imagination). In other words, they imagine something and then state it as a fact. So, yes, the focus of imaginary just so stories of Darwinists changes over time, but that can hardly be considered "how science works." TCS

Unsure what point Barry is making here. Knowledge is fluid and cumulative. I used to have as a kid an old encyclopedia from 1904. It was very informative on how to make nitroglycerine for instance, but missed out any information about powered flight. Arthur Smith

Boy, it really is a shame that science is incapable of change. But since a book stated some scientific facts 100 years ago, they are necessarily as true today as they seemed when they were first stated. That's just how science works. KRiS_Censored

Why stop at 100 years? Go back 500 years and you'll find a lot of scientific certitude behind Galenic medicine. Go back not much further and you'll find a lot of scientific certitude that disease was God's punishment. What's your point? That science changes in the face of new evidence? Congratulations. Point well made. Kevin

It would be interesting to know just who wrote that entry for Britannica but, like Russ, I am guessing that, given the period, the "negroes" in question were probably never asked. Seversky

middle age = feudal not a particular age. mullerpr

This sounds like a very powerful curse on an entire people group, spoken by some druid that is expected to subdue people for his middle age king. O... sorry it happened in the 20th century! Fortunately there are at least one atheist with insight regarding the victory over this curse. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece mullerpr

i wonder if blacks were just more honest than others questioned (assuming others were questioned) 100 years ago?

No actual questioning was necessary. Have you never heard of Evolutionary Psychology? It is a science that allows drives and motivations to be divined from across time and space. russ

boy, that last statement sounds true of any ethnicity...i wonder if blacks were just more honest than others questioned (assuming others were questioned) 100 years ago? interested