Intelligent Design Racism speciation

Taking aim at species classifier Carl Linnaeus for racism — but not Darwin

Spread the love

Ordering the world of life into “species,” Linnaeus provided a framework for others to try it on humans:

History has shown that these ideas were picked up by eugenicists such as German biologist Ernst Haeckel in the 19th century. Haeckel divided humans into 12 hierarchical species and 36 races, with the “Mediterranese” (specifically, the “Indo-Germanians”) ranked the highest and groups that made up “Primaeval Man” (Indigenous peoples in Africa and Oceania) ranked the lowest. He used physical but also cultural traits, such as language, to both define these “races” and make claims about their evolution (noting which ones were more or less evolved).

These ideas, combined with Haeckel’s social Darwinist belief that evolution ruled human civilization and nature, may have helped shape the racist ideologies of some Nazi organizers. Alfred Rosenberg (who was appointed leader of the Nazi movement by Adolf Hitler after he was jailed in 1924 for an attempted coup) reportedly read and was influenced by Haeckel’s ideas. Similarly, his ideas are thought to have helped stimulate the birth of fascism in Italy and France.

Brittany Kenyon-Flatt, “How Scientific Taxonomy Constructed the Myth of Race” at Sapiens

Now, how on earth did Haeckel get the idea of “social Darwinism”? Or is it “social Derwoodism?” Surely Haeckel can’t have been riffing off the celebrated Brit toff who wrote all this racist stuff? Kenyon-Flatt goes on:

Linnaeus surely remains an important historical figure, and his taxonomic ideas will likely continue to be taught in schools globally. However, it must be remembered that when his work is praised as a major scientific achievement, his deeply problematic legacy is also celebrated.

While it is true, as many scholars argue, that Linnaeus did not promote the idea of distinct human species, his concepts of human classification paved the way for pseudoscientific ideas about human biological diversity—the horrific consequences of which are still felt today.

Brittany Kenyon-Flatt, “How Scientific Taxonomy Constructed the Myth of Race” at Sapiens

One wonders how long it will be before war on science types will be attacking the concept of speciation (as a proxy for achievement in science) — for all the wrong reasons.

Yes, there is lots wrong with speciation — it’s a Darwinian obsession and otherwise a conceptual straitjacket. But what’s wrong with it is not whatever Haeckel, inspired by Darwin, made of Linnaeus.

So Darwin still has an asbestos reputation among the Woke. Anyone can be blamed for the generally racist attitudes of 19th century scientists except the man who did so much to pass them on.

See also: Deplatforming Isaac Newton: The trend to deplatforming major math and science figures will likely end in comfort with widespread innumeracy. Why study what one is taught to despise?

One Reply to “Taking aim at species classifier Carl Linnaeus for racism — but not Darwin

  1. 1

    Darwinism works to increase racism in several ways.

    The theory of natural selection is phrased using subjective terminology of differential reproductive “success”. The entire life cycle of organisms is then explained with a wide range of subjective terminology, in regards to this “success”. Then all this subjective terminology is asserted as objective.

    That leads to the logical implication that personal character of people must be an objective issue.

    And that is the mainstay of nazi belief, the personal character is heritable and factual. It cannot be anything but racist. People with markers X, are in fact, lazy people.

    Evolutionists do not discredit racism by saying that personal character is a subjective issue, they discredit it by asserting that the variation within a population is larger than the variation between populations. Which basically means to say, there are inferior people in every population. It only changes the target of racism from the traditional races, to individuals in a population.

    Natural selection theory properly understood = social darwinism, because of the use of subjective terminology in the theory.

    This is all the more so, because subjectivity is an inherently creationist concept, and natural selection stands in denial of creationism.

    In effect, natural selection objectifies subjective terminology, and then says that proper creationist subjectivity, is wrong.

    That is how natural selection theory is totally annihilating subjectivity. For example, there is a very widespread belief among evolutionists that emotions can be measured in the brain.

    Meaning that evolutionists identify emotions in an emotionless and calculating way. They have no clue that they must feel what emotions are in someone’s heart, and then express opinions about it, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will.

    Evolutionists don’t have any use for their emotions anymore, seeing as that they can just identify emotions by measuring them.

    It is no surprise then that the schoolbook for the Hitler Youth taught selection and evolution, in explicit reference to Charles Darwin. Selection was then extended to “socialist selection”, which meant, “wiping out the unworthy”.

    Now is “worth” objective, or subjective? The subjective worth is thrown out with creationism being thrown out, and worth is objectified with natural selection theory. Therefore it must be objective.

Leave a Reply