Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Was Neanderthal man fully human? The role racism played in assessing the evidence

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

From J. R. Miller at More than Cake:

Sadly, the record shows that the strongest advocates of UCD were racists in the guise of scientists who set-out to prove that the non-white features of blacks and aboriginal tribes were markers of an inferior pre-human species. As Jon Mooallem wrote in the NY Times:

No living humans had skeletal features remotely like these [Neanderthals], but King was under the impression that the skulls of contemporary African and Australian aboriginals resembled the Neanderthals’ more than “ordinary” white-people skulls. So extrapolating from his low opinion of what he called these “savage” races, he explained that the Neanderthal’s skull alone was proof of its moral “darkness” and stupidity. “The thoughts and desires which once dwelt within it never soared beyond those of a brute,” he wrote. Other scientists piled on. So did the popular press. We knew almost nothing about Neanderthals, but already we assumed they were ogres and losers.

Mooallem sanitizes the language for the modern reader, but [geologist] King himself wrote, “the Neanderthal skull is of an elongated oval form, with a basil outline bearing much resemblance to that of the Negro cranium… it is of a large size, being about an inch longer than ordinary British skulls…” King goes on to conclude that these features do not represent the higher human species (white people), but resembles the most “degraded” and “savage” races more akin to the apes. In 1886, just 3 years after King’s “discovery”, the German biologist and staunch racist Ernst Hackel proposed the name Homo-stupidus. It was also Hackel who in 1926 approved of Bernolet Moens’ experiments to use “negro” sperm to impregnate a chimpanzee believing these “lower forms” could interbreed with apes (Weikart, 59). Today many ND-evoultionsits may not publicly endorse the racist underpinnings of these “esteemed” proponents of Darwinian evolution, but “scientists” like Richard Dawkins continue to see humans as evolved animals. These modern ND evolutionists wholeheartedly approve of hybridization experiments and eagerly accept this classic definition of what “modern humans” should look like and continue the search for the missing link that connects the pre-human HN which they assume split from modern humans more than 1 million years ago.

The newest Neanderthal evidence, however, exposes this historic euro-centric prejudice and demonstrates the failure of these so-called “great men of science” to make a proper classification. More.

The photos that Miller provides showing the gradual humanization of Neanderthals in artists’ conceptions are fascinating.

So there is a history there, both in the paleontology community (and among religious people trying to make sense of it all, as Miller also recounts).

We really did not know much about Neanderthal man until fairly recently. The most common sort of evidence turning up today suggests that the Neanderthal lived pretty much the same as other humans and interbred with them. Although many claim that modern humans wiped them out, the story may be more complex. If Neanderthals were much less numerous than newcomers, many of them would be assimilated, as today’s genome maps seem to suggest.

The principal reason that Neanderthals have continued to be seen as less than human after the decline of racism in science is that they were the best hope that Darwinians had for a missing link, a not-quite-human. The Neanderthals’ biggest failure, as it happens, was that they did not live down to that billing. Even the Guardian’s editorial board now feels that, like so many others, they have been misjudged.

And the missing link is still missing.

See also: Neanderthal artwork found: “Academic bombshell” obliterates “lesser human” theory?

Neanderthal Man: The long-lost relative turns up again, this time with documents

and

A deep and abiding need for Neanderthals to be stupid. Why?

In this third post in my series, I look at 3 common views for making sense of the Neanderthal evidence and argue that the best option is to view them as fully human and descended from Adam and Eve.

Comments
Seversky, Darwin's views on race were clearly deeply integrated into his evolutionary theorising, and they were elaborated into extended frameworks that found expression in eugenics and onward in the practice of social darwinism -- where, yes Darwin was a social darwinist [see Descent of Man chs 5 - 7] -- and even euthanasia. Eugenics, per the motto of the well known 2nd international congress [with participation by his family], was defined as the self-direction of human evolution. Indeed, Hunter's Civic Biology, at the heart of the Scopes trial, given its title and content, taught eugenics as a matter of course as integral to the modern scientific viewpoint. It was the shock of the Nazi genocide rooted in such things that caused a backing away over the next several decades. Such shock, specifically did not include the class warfare democides of the Marxists; that has for some reason not received the same universal horror and repudiation. I find the reactions to the relevant history to be as significant as those to the implications of evolutionary materialistic scientism for mind and moral government (which jointly reduce it to grand delusion and self-referential incoherence). KFkairosfocus
June 14, 2018
June
06
Jun
14
14
2018
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
Belfast,
Try reading the book? That is an unworthy cop-out.
Not at all. It is a constructive suggestion. You say that the subtitle of the book is proof that he was a racist. Please provide some excerpts from the book where he talks about human races. I will save you the time. He doesn’t. He doesn’t mention human evolution at all in that book. At that time, biologists used the word “race” to refer to any grouping below the species level. Was Darwin racist by today’s standards? Absolutely. As was every white westerner at the time. Even abolitionists of the day (eg, Wilberforce) would be considered racist by today’s standards. But judged by the standards of the day, Darwin would have been considered one of the least racist white person around.Allan Keith
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
AK at 15 Try reading the book? That is an unworthy cop-out.Belfast
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
Arguing that Darwin's views on race - which are racist by current standards - are sufficient to taint his theory of evolution is to commit the ad hominem fallacy. His personal beliefs say nothing about whether his theory stands on its own as an explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. Just as arguing that the theory is somehow undermined because the eugenics movement was derived from it is the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam, an appeal to (adverse) consequences.Seversky
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
AK, perhaps, you would find reading Darwin's second book -- The Descent of Man -- chs 5 - 7, interesting. I found his discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English (presumably upper classes) revealing. The start of Ch 6 is telling, in many ways. The onward case of say the logos for the Eugenics conferences is significant also. The problem posed had an interesting answer that I found in a passage from a far more notorious figure. KFkairosfocus
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
06:04 PM
6
06
04
PM
PDT
Belfast,
preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. This is nonsense? How so?
Try reading the book and you will find out why.Allan Keith
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
AK at 12 preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. This is nonsense? How so?Belfast
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
"I completly (sic) understand PREJUDICE, like people tend to cluster together" Like people tend to cluster together purely as a positive preference for "like people". No prejudice (generally defined as positive or negative sentiment based on apparent group membership) nor negative preference against any particular unlikeness or general otherness is required for this happen. It is perfectly natural and unremarkable, having no moral or ethical implications whatsoever. The same cannot be said for attempts to force people to associate with various cause du jour groups for political purposes.ScuzzaMan
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Tom Robbins,
Darwin was a racists – the full title of his Origin of a species was “On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.
I was wondering when this nonsense would be brought up.Allan Keith
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Darwin was a racists - the full title of his Origin of a species was "On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." FAVORED RACES. Almost all white Europeans or Black Africans, or Asians were racist at that time. HOWEVER, I am not one to apply our higher sensibilities, often in a more actualized mind due to the wealth and education of that person, to people so many years ago - in fact, I HATE that we villinize an entire group simply because our fear and misunderstandings of the times, really changed what people thought was true... its very arrogant. Of course I abhor Racism, but I completly understand PREJUDICE, like people tend to cluster together - does it make hispanics in the city of Miami racists? Nope - that's and individual by individual case. But when these ideas shape science, they need to be taken seriously and we need to re-evaluate without the worldview crap that has no place in science. And I am saying this for judgemental "christians" and "atheists" alike - the leader of the human Genome project is a Christian, but his personal ideas do not matter one bit (or should not) when it comes to doing science. HUGE advances in science were made by deist, as they wanted to describe and understand God's creation - I believe it is harder for an atheist to be honest in science (i.e. multiverse and living in a simulation theory when confronted with evidence we are built from information, consciousness, and the evidence that there is a creator is far greater than not) - but to be a good scientists, you must, at the end of the day, go where data takes you, understanding it will NEVER explain why we are here, it will only help us understand our reality a little better, AS OUR HUMAN MINDS SEE IT, and produce technology to help us (hopefullY).Tom Robbins
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
kf
We have to face that, and find a way to respect fundamental equality, which is a moral principle. where, evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers cannot ground such.
Young atheists of the alt-Right correctly understand that the outrage that people express about racism and inequality is not grounded in logic or reason - certainly not from an atheist perspective. "What's wrong with racism"? They ask this and receive incoherent answers. They ask the same about feminism and other civic morals. If moral codes are established arbitrarily, and they really have no binding force, then racism is perfectly fine. Younger atheists simply accept this now. In the end, the atheist alt-Right will discover (they are already discovering) that masculine force, aggression and violence are the best ways of gaining dominance and power over society. Might makes right. "Christianized atheists" object to this and lament. But they don't have an argument against it. They can try ridicule and hostility but the power of the older generation's disdain has worn off by now. Atheists who appeal to Christian morals (such as equality or fairness) while also attacking Christianity and upholding Darwinism are contradictory or even hypocritical.Silver Asiatic
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
Folks, this exchange could be used as case studies in denial and distraction. There is no doubt that racism is a longstanding human problem, and that in many animals, the different and weaker will be picked on. Darwin et al lived in an age that saw science as the heart of unprecedented progress, and constructed theories that fit that in a context of presumed evolutionary progress. Racism and class superiority -- toff-ism? -- came in with it. That is blatant in chs 5 - 7 of darwin's Descent of Man. This then lent scientific respectability to racism, eugenics, euthanasia and ultimately genocide and class war. We have to face that, and find a way to respect fundamental equality, which is a moral principle. where, evolutionary materialism and fellow travellers cannot ground such. One consequence is the ongoing worst holocaust in history: 800+ million unborn children in 40+ years, advancing at a million per week, and corrupting our whole civilisation. Think about the rhetorical gymnastics to deny, distract and dismiss such at a future date. KFkairosfocus
June 13, 2018
June
06
Jun
13
13
2018
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
News,
Allan Keith at 3, Darwinism is not evolution. It is a theory of evolution that was uniquely well suited to incorporating racism into the scientific study of humans, as Richard Weikart demonstrates in his books and eugenics demonstrated in practice.
How so? All Darwin said was that natural selection acted on heritable variation within populations. What is racist about that? What is controversial about that? It has been demonstrated thousands of times. Did sick twisted people jump on this to promote their white superiority nonsense? Yes they did. Did the people who did this consider themselves Christian? Yes they did. So, who is the enemy here? Darwin or Jesus? Honest people will admit that neither are responsible. Where do you stand?Allan Keith
June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
If you want to read blatant, unalloyed racism try On The Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther. And bear in mind that what he wrote was by no means an uncommon sentiment throughout Christian Europe for centuries. Yet it's still Darwin who's primarily responsible for racism, the Nazis and the Holocaust.Seversky
June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
It is a theory of evolution that was uniquely well suited to incorporating racism into the scientific study of humans
How so?
Darwin added more racism than he took out.
I'm certain that if you opened some pre-Darwinian texts that were considered the leading science of its day that you'd be shocked.
He made racism good science instead of bad science.
Since I'm pretty sure you're not a Darwinist, what do you mean by "good science"?goodusername
June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Allan Keith at 3, Darwinism is not evolution. It is a theory of evolution that was uniquely well suited to incorporating racism into the scientific study of humans, as Richard Weikart demonstrates in his books and eugenics demonstrated in practice. goodusername at 4, Darwin added more racism than he took out. He made racism good science instead of bad science. Noe of that is anyone's fault today but you can't get past what you won't own. Fortunately, so much Darwinism is being confuted now that the problem is slowly resolving itself.News
June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
The principal reason that Neanderthals have continued to be seen as less than human after the decline of racism in science is that they were the best hope that Darwinians had for a missing link
It was always recognized that they co-existed with anatomically modern humans (e.g. cro-magnons) and so no one (or hardly anyone) thought of them as "missing links". They were thought of as a side branch that went extinct.
Darwin helped make racism science
Anyone who looks at pre-Darwinian science will see that no such help was needed there, and in fact he overthrew much of the most racist science of his day (e.g. polygenism).goodusername
June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
News,
Allan Keith at 1, Darwin helped make racism science. Surely that pioneering effort is worthy of recognition even though many others helped.
And chemistry made chemical warfare science. And microbiology helped make biological warfare science. And particle physics made nuclear warfare science. And Orville and Wilbur made carpet bombing science. And religion made the crusades and jihads acceptable. I fail to see your point.Allan Keith
June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT
Allan Keith at 1, Darwin helped make racism science. Surely that pioneering effort is worthy of recognition even though many others helped.News
June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
News, thank you for acknowledging that Darwin didn’t create racism. Racists just tried to use his theory in a lame attempt to use science to justify their racism.Allan Keith
June 12, 2018
June
06
Jun
12
12
2018
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply