Tony Campolo – What’s wrong with Darwinism?

_{Andrew Sibley

February 27, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Influential Christian preacher Tony Campolo highlights some of the racial assumptions that were part of Darwin’s theory. Writing in Christian Today, ‘What’s wrong with Darwinism?’, 27th February 2009 he draws attention to the full title of Darwin’s first book ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.’ Campolo though believes that ethics should be the focus of those who reject Darwin’s theory. He further comments (referencing the Descent of Man 1871) that;

“Darwin went so far as to rank races in terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas. He further proposed the extermination of those races which he “scientifically” defined as inferior. To not do so, he claimed, would result in those races, which have much higher birth rates than his designated superior races, exhausting the resources needed for the survival of better people, and eventually dragging down all of civilization”

“Darwin even argued against advanced societies wasting time and money on caring for those who are insane, or suffer from birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.”

“In case you think that Darwin sounds like a Nazi, you are not far from the truth. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who provided much of the propaganda for the Nazi party, made Darwin’s theories the basis for his polemics. The Pulitzer Prize winner, Marilynne Robinson, in her insightful essay on Darwin, points out that the German nationalist writer, Heinrich von Treitschke, and the biologist, Ernst Haeckel, also drew on Darwin’s writings as they helped Hitler develop those racist ideas that led to the Holocaust.”

This is a an interesting comment from Tony Campolo who has long been noted as a Christian preacher and apologist with a social conscience. Recent commentaries by organisations supporting theistic evolutionist, such as Theos and Faraday Institute in the UK, gives the impression that there is little interest in questioning the ethical basis for Darwin’s theory in respectable Christian society. Campolo acknowledges that Darwin was a product of his time, and clearly Darwin did not invent racism with some of his relations for instance taking an interest in abolishing the slave trade. Darwin too in his early life questioned slavery, but what happened to lead him to embrace ideas where Africans and Aborigines were considered closer to apes than Caucasians? Instead, a plain reading of the Bible teaches that all mankind are related and are of common ancestry.
Science and Values

Comments

See what happens when one forgets to check one's correction :-) Thank you Jerry & KF.tribune7_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

Okay: Link to Darwin's Descent of Man at Project Gutenberg. GEM of TKI Trib: you left off the closing angle bracket. Quotes on the address URL must not be curly . . . .kairosfocus_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

The mystery of Darwin will never be totally solved because the man, for all his gifts as a natualist, was not really a profound or even a consistent thinker. Further, we know for a fact that he was being disingenuous much of the time. It is on the record that he withheld many of his beliefs for strategic reasons. In the "Descent of Man," for example, he tempers his "scientifically based conclusions" with humanely oriented sentiments. On the one hand, he continually suggests that nature is cruel and ignoble, hinting at a decidedly cruel and ignoble social policy. On the other hand, he does, from time to time, tone things down a bit by suggesting that we are, nevertheless, noble in some sense, and ought to at least feel bad about what we must ultimately do to survive. That seems to be his syle: Give us the bottom line, interject a convenient disclaimer to cover his ass, and then re-emphasize the bottom line. Darwin's critics go with the stylish disclaimers, while Darwin's critics go with the substantive thesis. There is no way around the fact that Darwin was both ambivalent and dishonest about what he was doing and why he was doing it. He was ambivalent because his conscience and love of family were at odds with his loveless way of looking at the world. He was dishonest because he knew that his "conclusions" would not resonate with some people, and he therefore chose to mislead them for as long as he could. Sometimes, it is difficult to know where inner turmoil leaves off and the sleight of hand takes over. One thing seems evident: He lost his Christian faith before, not after, he conducted his research. That so many try to reverse that order and create the illlusion that his "discoveries" changed his world view is proof enough that they too, are trying to stack the deck. Whatever his motives, Darwin withheld many of his deepest beliefs in order to minimize criticism. That is the one undeniable fact and, for me, the decisive one. For all that, there is no doubt that his inhumane thesis was not nearly as inhumane as that of the geneticists, the abortionsts, or any of the "social Darwinists" that followed him. I don't question for one moment that he would have been horrified to learn what others have done in his name. One thing I do know is that his defenders, almost to a person, support the killing of innocent, unborn children. So, I don't worry too much about making an air-tight argument which takes us from Darwin to eugenics to abortion. It is much easier to simply point out that contemporary materialist/Darwinists, in spite of their outrage over Darwin bashing, are busy promoting a culture of death right here right now.StephenB_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Trib: I figured that is the Darwinists saw it on a Darwin-friendly site, they could have no challenge to make. But, Gutenberg is quite serious as a site. GEM of TKI PS: Cosmology . . .kairosfocus_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

The link tribune7 gave has a " at the end. Delete that in your browser address and it will take you to the correct page.jerry_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

No reason to give infidels.org any extra hits :-) That “as we may hope” has a potential significance that I trust was utterly inadvertent on CRD’s part. That's quite charitable on your part, KF. OTOH, it should give Allen some food for thought if he should be preparing another slam on Tony C.tribune7_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

Trib: That "as we may hope" has a potential significance that I trust was utterly inadvertent on CRD's part. I suspect he did not ever in his worst nightmares see a racial activist such as a certain herr Schicklegruber of Germany, of utterly unlamented memory. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Trib Thanks I give the infidels.org text in my link. Onlookers should read chs 5 - 7. GEM of TKI PS: Ch 5 excerpt: >> A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton,* namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort . . . Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults." There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency. We have seen that the intemperate suffer from a high rate of mortality, and the extremely profligate leave few offspring. >> PPS: Ch 7 excerpt: >>IT is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men; but I am about to enquire what is the value of the differences between them under a classificatory point of view, and how they have originated. In determining whether two or more allied forms ought to be ranked as species or varieties, naturalists are practically guided by the following considerations; namely, the amount of difference between them, and whether such differences relate to few or many points of structure, and whether they are of physiological importance; but more especially whether they are constant. Constancy of character is what is chiefly valued and sought for by naturalists. Whenever it can be shewn, or rendered probable, that the forms in question have remained distinct for a long period, this becomes an argument of much weight in favour of treating them as species . . . . There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,- as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body,* the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even in the convolutions of the brain.*(2) But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristies are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the lighthearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans,*(3) who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea. >>kairosfocus_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Here’s the Project Gutenberg link in case anyone doubts your context.tribune7_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

KF-- And we could also emphasize the as we may hope, part. <a href="http://gutenberg.readingroo.ms/etext00/dscmn10.txt"Here's the Project Gutenberg link in case anyone doubts your context. Just go to the link and do a text search for just about any sentence from the paragraph KF posted.tribune7_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

Allen (and others): Kindly, read this, from Ch 6 in Darwin's 1871 Descent of Man [which has been raised in recent threads here . . .]: ________________ Man is liable to numerous, slight, and diversified variations, which are induced by the same general causes, are governed and transmitted in accordance with the same general laws, as in the lower animals. Man has multiplied so rapidly, that he has necessarily been exposed to struggle for existence, and consequently to natural selection. He has given rise to many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species . . . . At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. ___________________ I think that a reasonable man would see form this passage, that Darwin did in fact do just what Mr Campolo said, and in precisely the sort of ethically loaded context that should give us pause: >>Darwin went so far as to rank races in terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas>> Now, Campolo goes on to say: >> He [CRD] further proposed the extermination of those races which he “scientifically” defined as inferior. >> If Campolo had instead said, that he coolly PREDICTED the extinction of such races, he would be literally and exactly correct. Campolo is certainly correct to net that CRD raised the issue of the competition between fecklessly multiplying races ["the Celts, i.e Irish] and the more restrained ["Scots" and "Saxons" i.e. English], with the very direct implication that it is Malthusian positive checks that stop the Celts from overtaking the better Scots and Saxons. So, that comes right home to me: the Irish potato famine, and the famine in Jamaica that triggered the indifference in response to petition for relief that triggered the Morant Bay uprising, due to Governor Eyre's utter want of humanity. I hardly need to mention my family member who stood up in the Jamaica Assembly time and again to warn and to plead to deaf ears; only to be arrested, dragged off under martial law from his sickbed and then kangaroo courted and hanged as instigating what he sought to avert. Let us instead contrast here H G Wells, a student of Huxley, who in War of the Worlds, opens up Ch 1 - the very opening paragraphs of the book -- with a veiled warning on what that cool prediction would easily enough lead to: >>No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own . . . Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us . . . . looking across space with instruments, and intelligences such as we have scarcely dreamed of, they see, at its nearest distance only 35,000,000 of miles sunward of them, a morning star of hope, our own warmer planet, green with vegetation and grey with water, with a cloudy atmosphere eloquent of fertility, with glimpses through its drifting cloud wisps of broad stretches of populous country and narrow, navy-crowded seas. And we men, the creatures who inhabit this earth, must be to them at least as alien and lowly as are the monkeys and lemurs to us. The intellectual side of man already admits that life is an incessant struggle for existence, and it would seem that this too is the belief of the minds upon Mars. . . . To carry warfare sunward is, indeed, their only escape from the destruction that, generation after generation, creeps upon them. And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit? >> Last time the above was pointed out, Allen, you walked off in a huff. Please, let us face this as a part of the truth, together; even as Darwin 200 celebrations are being held. For, event he4 sub-title of origin clearly indicates that the race was his population unit of competition for survival of the fittest: the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life Otherwise, the clear implication is that this part of the story is not a finished history. And that should give us serious pause. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

My thanks to Allen MacNeill for presenting what is clearly a deeply-felt case with such force and eloquence. I could not have put it better myself and can only hope it will make some impression on those who are pursuing the same tawdry rhetorical strategy against a gentle man who, whatever other may have made of his theories, wrote or did nothing to deserve such vilification. If I were still Christian I would be saddened and disappointed that people who profess the same faith could so blatantly ignore Biblical injunctions against bearing false witness, against casting the first stone unless one is free of sin oneself or against passing judgment lest one be judged oneself.Seversky_{February 28, 2009
February
02
Feb
28
28
2009
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

There is a connection between a society that has, at least, a minimal commitment to certain kinds of transcendental values and what human beings permit themselves to do one to the other.
Yes, “transcendental values”... Though one might deny they exist, or hold a worldview that’s not compatible with them, no one would want people in general to live as though transcendental values weren't real. But I suppose it’s natural to want to have our cake and eat it, too.RickToews_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
09:32 PM
9
09
32
PM
PDT}

We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority. ~ Stephen Jay Gould Matthew Arnold put his hands on it when he spoke about the 'withdrawal of faith'. There is a connection between a society that has, at least, a minimal commitment to certain kinds of transcendental values and what human beings permit themselves to do one to the other. ~ David Berlinski Ideas have consequences, and totally erroneous ideas are likely to have destructive consequences. ~ Steve Allenbevets_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT}

I wonder if Campolo might be confusing Darwin with Ernst Haeckel? Haeckel's racial hierarchy is described on page 98 of this volume: http://books.google.com/books?id=5DaJwW432SIC&pg=RA1-PA97&lpg=RA1-PA97&dq=racial+hierarchy+charles+darwin&source=bl&ots=5iR5wWEz9l&sig=vJ9N2y_FiX2Nd2lrq4Qt3PWUNXM&hl=en&ei=Wa6oSfvRE9Kgtwfl8YzgDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA1-PA98,M1russ_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

The big problem many have with Darwinism is it's inarguable use by some to create a value system -- I remember Allen getting upset with me for pointing out Hitler's citation of evolution to justify his the policies he was advocating in Mein Kampf. If the matter was solely limited as an attempt to describe nature with the understanding that there was a rule to the universe that set right and wrong apart from whatever science might describe, evolution would be a merely a mildly entertaining and relatively useless way to pass time, much like discussions involving the age of the Earth.tribune7_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
07:17 PM
7
07
17
PM
PDT}

"Only a person like Campolo, whose first priority is to use an emotional and political argument in an attempt to discredit a scientific one, would make such an elementary mistake." Ad hominem. How on earth do you claim to know what Campolo's priorities are? Did he tell you, or did you use a magic 8 ball? "Indeed, several less “developed” groups, including the Tasmanians, were driven to extinction, not by “evolutionists”, but by farmers and ranchers, who generally justified their superiority in religious, not biological terms. Again, Campolo deliberately and grossly distorts the record in an attempt to discredit Darwin’s scientific ideas." Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler's respective worldviews (communism and Nazism) were directly based on the writings of Darwin. "Once again, he wondered if the amount of time and money spent on caring for the insane or those with birth defects could be justified, if the same money could be better spent on improving the lives of less unfortunate people." In other words, Darwin *did* argue against advanced societies funding care for the insane or those with birth defects. At this point, your rabid defense of Darwin is overriding your rational thought. "Interesting; so there are Christian preachers and apologists that lack a social conscience? Just curious…" Just like there are atheists that lack a social conscience, I would imagine. Again, ad hominem and hasty generalization. Thanks for letting me practice discovering logical fallacies in your posts, Allen.Barb_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, nicely done. I personally find it distasteful to even read a post like this let alone go to all the trouble of tearing it down line by line.B L Harville_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT}

And by the way, Tony Compolo is described as a "Christian preacher and apologist with a social conscience". Interesting; so there are Christian preachers and apologists that lack a social conscience? Just curious...Allen_MacNeill_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

According to Tony Campolo, Charles Darwin supposedly wrote (or said, it's not clear which):
"Darwin went so far as to rank races in terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas. He further proposed the extermination of those races which he “scientifically” defined as inferior. To not do so, he claimed, would result in those races, which have much higher birth rates than his designated superior races, exhausting the resources needed for the survival of better people, and eventually dragging down all of civilization.” “Darwin even argued against advanced societies wasting time and money on caring for those who are insane, or suffer from birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.”
Every single sentence in this quotation is either a crude distortion or an outright lie. Let's take them one at a time:
"Darwin went so far as to rank races in terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas."
Here is a search for all references in Darwin's published works in which he mentions gorillas and humans: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/search-results?sort=date-ascending&pageno=0&pagesize=50&freetext=gorilla+man&allfields=&searchid=&name=Darwin+Charles+Robert&dateafter=&datebefore=&searchtitle=Descent+of+man&description=&place=&publisher=&periodical=&language=English Go ahead and click on each link (I have). In none of them does Darwin "rank" human races according to their "nearness to gorillas". He does compare the anatomical characteristics of humans and gorillas, but a person could just as easily do the same thing with humans and cichlid fish. In making such a comparison, the point would be to show that there are similarities and differences, which Darwin attributed to the evolutionary divergence of humans and gorillas from a common ancestor. Only a person like Campolo, whose first priority is to use an emotional and political argument in an attempt to discredit a scientific one, would make such an elementary mistake.
"He further proposed the extermination of those races which he “scientifically” defined as inferior."
This is a base lie (the first of several). Darwin did no such thing, in either his publications or private correspondence. He never proposed the extermination of anyone, anywhere, anytime, under any conditions. What he did was to predict that the less "developed" races ("developed" primarily in a cultural and technological sense) would eventually be exterminated by the more “developed” Europeans. And he was very nearly right; Europeans came very close to exterminating many of the less "developed" human cultures of Darwin's time. Indeed, several less “developed” groups, including the Tasmanians, were driven to extinction, not by "evolutionists", but by farmers and ranchers, who generally justified their superiority in religious, not biological terms. Again, Campolo deliberately and grossly distorts the record in an attempt to discredit Darwin's scientific ideas.
"To not do so, he claimed, would result in those races, which have much higher birth rates than his designated superior races, exhausting the resources needed for the survival of better people, and eventually dragging down all of civilization.”
Again, this is a deliberate distortion so extreme as to qualify as an outright lie. Darwin did speculate about the demographic effects of the differences in the birth rates of different groups of people with what he and most other people of his era considered to have different "intellectual capabilities". However, he never "warned" that this would lead to the "degeneration" of the human species, much less advocate their elimination. Darwin himself had at least one "feeble-minded" and "sickly" child, his youngest son Charles, whose "infirmities" he speculated might have been due to his marriage to his first cousin, Emma Wedgwood. However, he loved his son and all the rest of his children very deeply, and never expressed any hint that he might want him (or anyone else, regardless of their characteristics) "exterminated". Campolo has at this point so grossly distorted the record that it is clear that his purpose is not just smearing Darwin, but smearing all evolutionary biologists by association.
“Darwin even argued against advanced societies wasting time and money on caring for those who are insane, or suffer from birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.”
Darwin did nothing of the kind. He himself donated to the abolitionist societies of his time (he and every member of his family was a committed abolitionist who hated the very concept of slavery). Once again, he wondered if the amount of time and money spent on caring for the insane or those with birth defects could be justified, if the same money could be better spent on improving the lives of less unfortunate people. However, as I have already pointed out, he himself had a son who he believed was “deficient” as the result of his birth and inheritance, yet he didn’t even hint that he might not lavish his money and attention on his youngest son (who died at the age of 18 months, a death that compounded Darwin’s sorrow at the earlier death of his beloved daughter, Annie). As to Compolo’s reprise of Ben Stein’s “nazi” trope, this has been discussed enough on this blog: I call Godwin’s Law, and refer you to: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/03/godwins-darwin.html This whole thread is just another example of the completely bankrupt (and morally corrupt) form of ad hominem argument argumentation so often used by creationists against evolutionary biologists. And, like Godwin’s Law, it’s essentially an admission of defeat: if you can’t win a logical argument on the basis of empirical evidence, solid inference, and scientific reasoning, then attack your opponent’s character using “guilt by association”. However, in this case, any association between modern evolutionary biologists and Charles Darwin would be mostly to their credit, as any even cursory review of Darwin’s biography clearly indicates that he would find all of Compolo’s assertions both false and dastardly in the extreme.Allen_MacNeill_{February 27, 2009
February
02
Feb
27
27
2009
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply