Scientific Certitude 100 years ago

_{Barry Arrington
March 14, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

From the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911):

“[T]he negro would appear to stand on a lower evolutionary plane than the white man, and to be more closely related to the highest anthropoids.”

“Mentally the negro is inferior to the white.”

“[A]fter puberty sexual matters take the first place in the negro’s life and thought.”

Comments

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

Borne [54], why blame Allen for missing a point when this whole line of discussion is both pointless and ugly?David Kellogg_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

"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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

Sorry Allen, you're still missing the whole point.Borne_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT}

OOppps s I meant to write even polygenic does NOT force one to be a racist in heart. sorryBorne_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

Well, after the debacle I have just watched on this site, one wonders whither Intelligent Design now?Arthur Smith_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

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 CreationistsJoseph_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply