Scientific Certitude 100 years ago

_{Barry Arrington

March 14, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; 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

Watson is not an evolutionary biologist. Also, Crick and Watson are different people. What is your evidence against Crick?David Kellogg_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

the christian science monitor: who reads that?wonderdog_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Hey Barry, The Klan just called. They want to know if you're interested in writing for them.DaveScot_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

OT: What happened to yesterday's post by Mr Arrington on shadow life? Has the database been corrupted?madsen_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

BTW, for those of you who don't know, Stephen Jay Gould was an evolutionary biologist.Allen_MacNeill_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

middle age = feudal not a particular age.mullerpr_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT}

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.ecemullerpr_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT}

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_{March 15, 2009
March
03
Mar
15
15
2009
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

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_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply