Darwin's prophet, T.H. Huxley, was a racist

[davidford]

I first came across this Huxley while looking through my set of Huxley books.

Huxley, T.H. 1865. “Emancipation–Black and White”
aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE3/B&W.html
_ _ It may be quite true that some negroes are better
_ _ than some white men; but no rational man,
_ _ cognisant of the facts, believes that the average
_ _ negro is the equal, still [67] less the superior, of the
_ _ average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply
_ _ incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed,
_ _ and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no
_ _ favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to
_ _ compete successfully with his bigger-brained and
_ _ smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be
_ _ carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest
_ _ places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly
_ _ not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though
_ _ it is by no means necessary that they should be
_ _ restricted to the lowest.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Tristram in 1860:
_ _ the argument of noise and sneers with which
_ _ (Darwinists) tried to put down… everyone… who did not
_ _ subscribe to the infallibility of the God Darwin
_ _ and his prophet Huxley

Cited by Hsu. See
Darwin’s bible; Hsu
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3a18k3F66sgjpU1%40individual.net

 

[GoLatin]

Yes, I believe that a lot of Darwinian evolutionists were racists.

 

[BillP]

GoLatin:

Yes, I believe that a lot of Darwinian evolutionists were racists.

I’m sure a lot of them beat their wives, cheated on their taxes and had halitoses as well. That doesn’t make their scientific evidence less accurate or compelling.

 

[GoLatin]

BillP:

I’m sure a lot of them beat their wives, cheated on their taxes and had halitoses as well. That doesn’t make their scientific evidence less accurate or compelling.

I think that Darwinian evolution basically discounted the possibility of God.

The Catholic Church allows us to speculate that evolution MAY have happened, but God set things in motion, and He has always been in control of everything.

 

[davidford]

GoLatin:

I think that Darwinian evolution basically discounted the possibility of God.

The Catholic Church allows us to speculate that evolution MAY have happened, but God set things in motion, and He has always been in control of everything.

“Catholic Church allows us to speculate that evolution MAY have happened, but God set things in motion”

Meaning of “evolution”?

legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

Hitler encounters the T0E as a child: A Victory for Atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118403178.860854.170600%40g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Stalin encounters the T0E in seminary: A Victory for Atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1118511187.489582.241590%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

“Darwinian evolution basically discounted the possibility of God”

Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker (1987), 6:
“An atheist before Darwin could have said… ‘I have no
explanation for complex biological design. All know is
that God isn’t a good explanation, so we must wait and
hope that somebody comes up with a better one.’ I can’t
help feeling that such a position, though logically sound,
would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that
although atheism might have been logically tenable
before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an
intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

 

[Strider]

BillP:

I’m sure a lot of them beat their wives, cheated on their taxes and had halitoses as well. That doesn’t make their scientific evidence less accurate or compelling.

Given that Darwin and his associates were products of their culture, Victorian England, the rascist views are not surprising, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that his science was more pure than his views.
If one believes the statements in the OP, then he will look for evidence to confirm his views and, human naure being what it is, diminish or discount that which contradicts them.
Peer review will generally follow the major premises, which may be correct or only slightly slanted.

 

[Donald45]

Plenty of theists have advocated racism throughout history, many on the basis of the very religious beliefs they espoused. Evolutionists (whether theists or atheists) certainly have no corner on racism, which has thrived in human society from the beginning of civilization, and which was manifestly present long before 1859 when The Origin of Species was first published.

 

[BillP]

Strider:

Given that Darwin and his associates were products of their culture, Victorian England, the rascist views are not surprising, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that his science was more pure than his views.

Nope but it has withstood 150 years of rather rigorous examination by other scientists.

Strider:

Peer review will generally follow the major premises, which may be correct or only slightly slanted.

I’m not sure what you mean here but I would point out that the dustbin of history is replete with discarded scientific theories that failed the test of time and peer review. In fact, evolution may someday join them. But as for now that’s not looking good.

 

[BillP]

GoLatin:

I think that Darwinian evolution basically discounted the possibility of God.

Scientists would strenuously disagree with you… Darwinian evolution is silent as to God’s involvement or lack of involvement. All it does is describe a mechanism.

GoLatin:

The Catholic Church allows us to speculate that evolution MAY have happened, but God set things in motion, and He has always been in control of everything.

You’ll find nothing in Darwinian evolution to contradict that viewpoint. Because God is, by definition, supernatural and therefore not scientifically proveable, science is silent as to his existence or non-existence. It finally comes down to matter of faith.

 

[Roche42]

Its unfortunate if he was indeed a racist, but an ad hominem does not constitute a valid criticism of evolution…sorry.

 

[Ianjo99]

Roche42:

Its unfortunate if he was indeed a racist, but an ad hominem does not constitute a valid criticism of evolution…sorry.

He (davidford) is just going to ask you for the meaning of evolution and a bunch of other questions. Just a heads up.

 

[steveandersen]

Ianjo99:

He (davidford) is just going to ask you for the meaning of evolution and a bunch of other questions. Just a heads up.

he already has
and in multiple posts
If you ask him why he’ll respond with more question…sort of like Kane; I wonder if he wanders the earth too

I hate to use the “T” word but sometimes a man gets tempted

 

[PLP]

BillP:

I’m not sure what you mean here but I would point out that the dustbin of history is replete with discarded scientific theories that failed the test of time and peer review. In fact, evolution may someday join them. But as for now that’s not looking good.

At this point, even if evolution were replaced, it would almost certainly be found to be a true special case of a more general theory (just as Newtonian Mechanics/Gravity is a special case of Special/General Relativity). It’s simply too powerful to be completely wrong.

 

[davidford]

Various persons:

Given that Darwin and his associates were
products of their culture, Victorian England, the
rascist views are not surprising, but it doesn’t
necessarily follow that his science was more pure
than his views.
If one believes the statements in the OP, then he
will look for evidence to confirm his views and,
human naure being what it is, diminish or discount
that which contradicts them.

[Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework (1996), 7.]“Of course, the
individual scientist may wish to establish his theory rather than to
refute it. But from the point of view of progress in science, this wish
can easily mislead him. Moreover, if he does not himself examine his
favourite theory critically, others will do so for him.”

racism, which has thrived in human
society from the beginning of civilization, and
which was manifestly present long before 1859
when The Origin of Species was first published.

1859 Darwin vs. the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1120016676.023811.113660%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

the dustbin of history is replete with
discarded scientific theories that failed the test of
time and peer review. In fact, evolution may
someday join them. But as for now that’s not
looking good.

Meaning of “evolution”?

legerdemain in the use of the word ‘evolution’
google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132102419.915797.111840%40o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com

God is, by
definition, supernatural and therefore not
scientifically proveable

Moses allegedly communicated with the God of Judaism. Suppose such occurred. Do you think that Moses thought the God of Judaism was “not scientifically proveable”?

Its unfortunate if he was indeed a racist, but an ad
hominem does not constitute a valid criticism of
evolution…sorry.

Do you agree with me that T.H. Huxley “was indeed a racist”?

Meaning of “evolution”?

At this point, even if evolution were replaced, it
would almost certainly be found to be a true
special case of a more general theory (just as
Newtonian Mechanics/Gravity is a special case of
Special/General Relativity). It’s simply too powerful
to be completely wrong.

Meaning of “evolution”?

[1996 Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff]“Population genetics is destined to change
if it is not to become as irrelevant to evolution as Newtonian
mechanics is to contemporary physics.”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602230744.671C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

[1915 William Bateson]“We are just about where Boyle was in the
seventeenth century. We can dispose of Alchemy, but we can not make
more than a quasi-chemistry. We are awaiting our Priestly and our
Mendeleeff.”
groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405161853.5f28f100%40posting.google.com

[1963 Ehrlich and Holm]“it is conceivable, even likely, that what one
might facetiously call a non-Euclidean theory of evolution lies over
the horizon”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234330.51A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

1979 Futuyma: “ultra-modern synthesis” needed
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990307202439.1296706B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu

1978 Rosen: the phrase
“‘natural selection’” ought be “stripped from our technical
vocabulary,”
and the theory “sen[t]… off to join the ether, phlogiston, and
noxious
vapors.”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980913231459.8446A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu

 

[davidford]

GoLatin:

I believe that a lot of Darwinian evolutionists were racists.

Including H.L. Mencken?

Alan Wolfe in The New Republic: “We ought never to forget that the
twentieth century’s greatest American skeptic, H.L. Mencken, was an
ugly anti-Semite.”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39rvm4F63q0jrU1%40individual.net

H.L. Mencken in the 1910 Men versus the Man: A Correspondence between
Robert Rives La Monte, Socialist, and H.L. Mencken, Individualist,
29-30, cited in
[thedarw(name removed by moderator)apers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html](http://www.thedarw(name removed by moderator)apers.com/oldsite/number13/number13.html)
“I admit freely enough that, by careful breeding,
supervision of environment and education, extending
over many generations, it might be possible to make an
appreciable improvement in the stock of the American
negro, for example, but I must maintain that this
enterprise would be a ridiculous waste of energy, for
there is a high-caste white stock ready at hand, and it is
inconceivable that the negro stock, however carefully it
might be nurtured, could ever even remotely approach it.
The educated negro of today is a failure, not because he
meets insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a
negro. He is, in brief, a low-caste man, to the manner
born, and he will remain inert and inefficient until fifty
generations of him have lived in civilization. And even
then, the superior white race will be fifty generations
ahead of him.”