Evolution and Racism

[happyrain]

I have a message on my youtube profile description about Evolution, and how as a biological process it is perfectly compatible with the book of Genesis when accuratly interpreted, but I received a message from someone earlier today stating…

‘I am assuming by your site that you are a person of african decent. With that in mind i wonder how you could entertain the idea of evolution . Dont you find it offensive that all supposed transitional beings of ape decent are assumed to be dark skin . The fathers of evolution used their theory to support their hate for people of colour , they believed that the blacks where a lesser grade human that had not evolved as far as the white . Are you familiar with the entire title of darwins origen book ? it stated that evolution preserved superior races thru evolution . Dont demean yourself , you are made in the immediate image of the creater . you are not some cosmic accident .
take care .’

Is this true? I think I have heard of this before but I wasn’t sure. Is it true that Darwin used Evolution as a support theory to hate people of colour? And if so, how is this supported by Evolution?

Does Evolution say that African people are somehow less than their European counterparts?

 

[rossum]

I have a message on my youtube profile description about Evolution, and how as a biological process it is perfectly compatible with the book of Genesis when accuratly interpreted, but I received a message from someone earlier today stating…

'I am assuming by your site that you are a person of african decent.

According to evolution humans evolved in Africa, so all humans are of African descent.

With that in mind i wonder how you could entertain the idea of evolution . Dont you find it offensive that all supposed transitional beings of ape decent are assumed to be dark skin.

Why is that offensive? Dark skin is advantageous in a hot climate like Africa in order to reduce skin cancer. Dark skin is a beneficial adaptation.

The fathers of evolution used their theory to support their hate for people of colour

Charles Darwin was an anti-slavery campaigner. He did have some common nineteenth century racial attitudes, but in terms of the time he was progressive on such issues.

Are you familiar with the entire title of darwins origen book ? it stated that evolution preserved superior races thru evolution.

In Darwin’s title the word “races” means ‘subspecies’ or ‘variant’. Humans are hardly mentioned at all in “On the Origin of Species”. Even if Darwin were racist that does not impact the correctness or not of his theory. Darwin, Marx, Hitler and Stalin all thought that 1 + 1 = 2; should we stop accepting mathematics?

Is it true that Darwin used Evolution as a support theory to hate people of colour?

No. Darwin campaigned against slavery. He was a nineteenth century English gentleman and did have many attitudes common to his social circles - he probably thought that the English were generally superior to all other people, especially to the French.

And if so, how is this supported by Evolution?

It isn’t.

Does Evolution say that African people are somehow less than their European counterparts?

No. Modern Africans are better adapted to the African environment with things like darker skin and resistance to malaria. Modern Europeans are better adapted to a European environment with paler skin and a higher incidence of lactose tolerance. Both are well adapted to their native environments.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

'I am assuming by your site that you are a person of african decent. With that in mind i wonder how you could entertain the idea of evolution . Dont you find it offensive that all supposed transitional beings of ape decent are assumed to be dark skin .

They aren’t always, but it’s pretty good guess. Our earliest ancestors were from Africa, and almost all human populations with historical roots in such climates have dark skins because dark skins are adaptive to such envirionments. Note, however, that it’s not racial; you see that some Amerinds in the Americas have darker skins than most Africans, although their ancestors were relatively light-skinned Asians.

The fathers of evolution used their theory to support their hate for people of colour , they believed that the blacks where a lesser grade human that had not evolved as far as the white .

Pretty much all Europeans thought that other races were inferior. Darwin was no exception. The reason he was thought to be a progressive in his time was that he opposed slavery, and thought that every human was entitled to dignity and freedom. Pretty much the opinion of Abraham Lincoln, who also would be considered a racist by today’s standards.

Modern evolutionists are rarely racists, because the evidence shows that there are no biological human races. But as recently as 1992, a prominent creationist (Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research) was writing about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.

Are you familiar with the entire title of darwins origen book ? it stated that evolution preserved superior races thru evolution .

“Races” in Darwin’s time meant something like “species” today. He wrote a different book about humans and evolution; there is almost nothing about it in “The Origin of Species.”

Is this true? I think I have heard of this before but I wasn’t sure. Is it true that Darwin used Evolution as a support theory to hate people of colour? And if so, how is this supported by Evolution?

No. Darwin was strongly opposed to slavery, and thought that all humans had the same rights. You have to consider people in context of the times in which they lived. Darwin was exceptionally progressive for his time.

Does Evolution say that African people are somehow less than their European counterparts?

No. It says that there are no biological races in humans today. If all humans but those of a small village in Gambia were to die, the human race would retain the vast majority of it’s genes.

We are truly all of one race, according to evolutionary theory.

 

[redhen]

It says that there are no biological races in humans today.
We are truly all of one race, according to evolutionary theory.

The majority of physical anthropologists would disagree with you.

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html

“I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether “real” or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is “only skin deep” is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.”

 

[happyrain]

Thanks for your replies.

Why is Evolution called ‘The theory of evolution’ if it is a scientific fact?

 

[b_ulmen]

Thanks for your replies.

Why is Evolution called ‘The theory of evolution’ if it is a scientific fact?

perhaps because it can’t be replicated in a science lab??

 

[DavWan]

They aren’t always, but it’s pretty good guess. Our earliest ancestors were from Africa, and almost all human populations with historical roots in such climates have dark skins because dark skins are adaptive to such envirionments. Note, however, that it’s not racial; you see that some Amerinds in the Americas have darker skins than most Africans, although their ancestors were relatively light-skinned Asians.

Pretty much all Europeans thought that other races were inferior. Darwin was no exception. The reason he was thought to be a progressive in his time was that he opposed slavery, and thought that every human was entitled to dignity and freedom. Pretty much the opinion of Abraham Lincoln, who also would be considered a racist by today’s standards.

Modern evolutionists are rarely racists, because the evidence shows that there are no biological human races. But as recently as 1992, a prominent creationist (Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research) was writing about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.

“Races” in Darwin’s time meant something like “species” today. He wrote a different book about humans and evolution; there is almost nothing about it in “The Origin of Species.”

No. Darwin was strongly opposed to slavery, and thought that all humans had the same rights. You have to consider people in context of the times in which they lived. Darwin was exceptionally progressive for his time.

No. It says that there are no biological races in humans today. If all humans but those of a small village in Gambia were to die, the human race would retain the vast majority of it’s genes.

We are truly all of one race, according to evolutionary theory.

I think there is an amphiboly here on the meaning of race, whether it is used for “species” or “ethnicity”

In the sense of “Species” it is true we are all of one type. In terms of ethnicity, there are differences. Cosmetic differences to be sure, but some do believe that certain ethnicities are “more evolved.”

Whether or not Darwin intended it (and indeed it seems that he did not), certainly some of his followers have reasoned ethnic superiority or inferiority from his works. Indeed, Eugenics seems to have arisen from some of his followers.

Of course Darwin cannot be blamed for something done in his name he did not hold, but is evolutionary theory entirely clean of the charge?

I would tend to suspect however that whether one believes in Creationism or Evolution, racism affects how they view Creationism or Evolution, not the reverse.

 

[Sideline]

Thanks for your replies.

Why is Evolution called ‘The theory of evolution’ if it is a scientific fact?

A theory is an explanatory framework that explains our observations. Facts are basically observations.

Often, the theory is more reliable than the facts. If you have made millions of observations, and 10 don’t fit, odds are the 10 were mistakes.

It is called the theory of evolution because it is a framework to explain the observed facts. The observed facts are things like: sharing pseudo-genes across species; endogenous retroviruses found in the same location across species; finding similar genetic structures in closely related species, while finding different genetic structures in unrelated species that share the same ecosystem; fossil findings; variation within species; genetic mutations; changing patters of inheritance across generations; etc.

 

[ConallCernach]

Thanks for your replies.

Why is Evolution called ‘The theory of evolution’ if it is a scientific fact?

For the same reason that the Theory of Gravitation is called the Theory of Gravitation, and Atomic Theory called Atomic Theory.

Pax

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It says that there are no biological races in humans today.
We are truly all of one race, according to evolutionary theory.

The majority of physical anthropologists would disagree with you.

Very doubtful. Unless they are totally ignorant of recent genetic findings:
Anthropometry is the scientific study of variation in the size and shape of the human body. Anthropometric data have been used both to justify the belief in human biological “races” and to discredit this erroneous belief. This entry provides an overview of anthropometry and its relationship with “race” and racism…The population approach employs an understanding of human anthropometry, genetics, demography, and socio-cultural behavior to show that there are no scientifically definable boundaries between human groups—meaning that there are no biological “races.” It is known in the early twenty-first century that there is more genetic and anthropometric variation among individuals within any of the “races” than there is between people of different “races.” Africa and Europe, for example, include populations that are both tall (Tutsi men of Rwanda average 5’8”, while Dutch men average 6’) and short (Efe Pygmy men average 4’8”, while Portuguese men average 5’6”).
encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5956/Anthropometry.html

Having been an ergonomist for many years, I know a fair amount about anthropometry and variation within populations as well as the fact that anthropometry changes very quickly in groups experiencing a change in nutrition, lifestyles, and culture, among other factors…

Anyone who says there’s a biological basis for human races, as they exist today, is stuffed with prunes.

 

[mlchance]

Charles Darwin was a man of his time. He was indeed at least a bit of a racist. He did write that white Europeans represented a higher form of human than did black Africans, Asians, et cetera. He even opined that the relationship between the highest apes and the lowest humans (read: Africans) was closer than the relationship between the highest humans (read: white Europeans) and the lowest humans. Darwin even went so far to hypothesize the eventual extinction of either highest apes or lowest humans.

So, in short, yes, his work was indeed racist. Other racists seized upon these pseudo-scientific Darwinisms as part of the pseudo-sciences of eugenics and social Darwinism.

One can argue that Charles Darwin never intended for this to occur. One can also argue that Darwin lacked the full courage of his convictions, most likely because of his sense of moral revulsion about the conclusions.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rossum]

Thanks for your replies.

Why is Evolution called ‘The theory of evolution’ if it is a scientific fact?

Evolution is both a fact and a theory, just as gravity is both a fact and a theory.

Gravity-as-fact says “things fall down”. We can confirm this in the lab and in nature.

Gravity-as-theory is the best scientific explanation we have for the fact. Newton had ‘action at a distance’, Einstein replaced that with ‘curvature of space-time’. Eventually quantum gravity will replace Einstein’s explanation with a new one.

Evolution-as-fact says “the collective genome of an interbreeding population changes over time”. We can confirm this in the lab and in nature. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an obvious example.

Evolution-as-theory is the best scientific explanation we have for the fact. Darwin gave us natural selection and sexual selection. From Mendel we have random mutation and we also have genetic drift, founder effect and other mechanisms.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Whether or not Darwin intended it (and indeed it seems that he did not), certainly some of his followers have reasoned ethnic superiority or inferiority from his works.

Darwin, like almost all Europeans of his time, assumed Europeans were superior. His theory gave him no reason to believe so; he took it as a given.

Indeed, Eugenics seems to have arisen from some of his followers.

No. In fact, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenic idea were scientifically insupportable.

Of course Darwin cannot be blamed for something done in his name he did not hold, but is evolutionary theory entirely clean of the charge?

Yep. Of course, there are people who kill and torture in the name of God, just as some did it in the name of science. This is not a reflection on Christianity. When one is evil, anything can be used as an excuse.

I would tend to suspect however that whether one believes in Creationism or Evolution, racism affects how they view Creationism or Evolution, not the reverse.

Probably so. But consider what happened to Watson when he made a racist statement, and what happened to Henry Morris for a much stronger statement of racism.

Not all creationists are racists. Far from it. But they have tolerated it among their leaders.

 

[oriel16]

A theory is an explanatory framework that explains our observations. Facts are basically observations.

Often, the theory is more reliable than the facts. If you have made millions of observations, and 10 don’t fit, odds are the 10 were mistakes.

It is called the theory of evolution because it is a framework to explain the observed facts.
.

The evolution of lifeforms from simple organisms to complex was already contained in geological strata as fossil evidence thereby providing humanity with its first detailed look at a much older and grander planetary stage.

Darwin’s adaption of a racial supremacy essay by Malthus injected a ‘cause’ into the already existing evolutionary framework and I have to question the intelligence of Christians for going along with an anti-scientific approach,maneuver or whatever you call it.

Do I have to explain again and remind people here what happened in Europe in the 1940’s or when a group of people decided that they had grounds for supremacy based on ‘survival of the fittest’.Maybe a picture of a girl in the background of this hymn ,a young girl who went to the gas chambers might get the message across to people who clearly wish to celebrate a ‘theory’ -

youtube.com/watch?v=DCbuqXZ0Gfo

The flip side of the celebration of the diversity of life and all the relationships is presently lost to intellectual pretension of empiricism .I refuse to believe Christians ,knowing what they know,would not fight this actively.

 

[The_Barbarian]

One can argue that Charles Darwin never intended for this to occur. One can also argue that Darwin lacked the full courage of his convictions, most likely because of his sense of moral revulsion about the conclusions.

Unlikely. Darwin had the backbone to differ strongly with the Captain of the Beagle (a pro-slavery creationist) because he was adamantly opposed to slavery.

In a time when a captain in the British navy had the authority to execute those on his ship, this took no small amount of courage.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Do I have to explain again and remind people here what happened in Europe in the 1940’s or when a group of people decided that they had grounds for supremacy or ‘survival of the fittest’.

Actually, the Nazis supported their ideas not by appealing to Darwin, but to Martin Luther, something they freely admitted.

About 90% of the “Final Solution” can be found in Luther’s “The Jews and Their Lies.” And again, the Nazis openly admitted it.

Yes, explain again, for us.

 

[redhen]

The population approach employs an understanding of human anthropometry, genetics, demography, and socio-cultural behavior to show that there are no scientifically definable boundaries between human groups—meaning that there are no biological “races.”

Having been an ergonomist for many years, I know a fair amount about anthropometry and variation within populations as well as the fact that anthropometry changes very quickly in groups experiencing a change in nutrition, lifestyles, and culture, among other factors…

Anyone who says there’s a biological basis for human races, as they exist today, is stuffed with prunes.

Did you even read the article I linked to? Forensic pathologists and physical anthropologists perform racial identification all the time, to the satisfaction of a judge or jury. Your link to the encyclopedia entry states that there no definable boundaries. Thanks, but we knew this already, that’s where clines come in. Hair and skin pigmentation are polygenic traits, i.e. they are influenced by genes at two or more loci.

People have no problem talking about sub-species/breeds/races of dogs for example. Just because you can mix a German Shepherd and a Labrador Retriever and get varied hair colour and length somewhere in between, doesn’t mean there are no such things as German Shepherds and Labrador Retrievers.

As an ergonomist, do you study skull structure and dentition? Racial traits are not just limited to bone length.

 

[oriel16]

Yes, explain again, for us.

The Arian heresy is a very appealing one and the early Church rightfully fought against it tooth and nail as it represents Christ as something less than He is.The Arian heretics are all head and no heart which means they can be swayed by arguments which look reasonable even though they may be extremely vacuous and dangerous as they do not have the intuitive intelligence to ‘test’ ideas and conclusions .The general atmosphere that prevails presently is exceptionally close to but not identical with that heretical condition insofar as people know this by way of a scientific heritage that was once a wonderful facet within Christianity is now rotting it from the inside and attacking it from the outside and Christians are carried away by the hypocrisy in finding a common ground between science vs religion as Church authorities are not doing their job.The Arian taint shows itself among empiricists and their supporters among Christians as a ‘different way of knowing’ or “religion tells us how to go to heaven and science tells us how the heavens go”.

Now,I have already presented,in another thread,the text of Darwin in terms of his ‘eureka’ moment borrowed directly from an essay on racial supremacy by Thomas Malthus and the exact same reasoning employed to appeal to Germans on the grounds of supremacy.The natural trajectory of ‘survival of the fittest’ does have an ending and if the millions of death via the gas chambers is not enough for you to go back and look at why Darwin’s illegal transfer of a racial document to biological evolution is not an affront to human decency never mind a basis of contention with Christ and Christianity then we are dealing with an altogether different matter.

The greatest difficulty of the Arian heresy is spotting it ,the great Catholic author of the middle ages knew all too well how it manifests itself and empiricism is simply another variation on the theme -

“Now, nothing is so comfortable and pleasant to nature, as a free, careless way of life, therefore she clings to that life, and takes enjoyment in herself and her own powers, and looks only to her own peace and comfort and the like. And this happens most of all, where there are high natural gifts of reason, for that soars upwards in its own light and by its own power, till at last it comes to think itself the true Eternal Light, and gives itself out as such, and is thus deceived in itself, and deceiving other people along with it, who know no better, and also are thereunto inclined.”

Theologia Germanica

I could explain to you in a thousand ways,technical,historical ,procedural and just plain common sense why Darwin’s adaption of a racial document is purely anti-scientific but I already know that anybody reading it will immediately know that it is.

It is up to Christians to do their best to prevent the highly popular ‘two ways of knowing’ that is beginning to pop up as a means to resolve science vs religion for no man can serve two masters or they will end up serving the wrong one.

 

[oriel16]

.

Gravity-as-theory is the best scientific explanation we have for the fact. Newton had ‘action at a distance’, Einstein replaced that with ‘curvature of space-time’. Eventually quantum gravity will replace Einstein’s explanation with a new one.

rossum

Newton was an Arian idiot who had the same hypnotic charm that appeals to that type of mind but the technical details of his work do not stand up to scrutiny.I could explain that he tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by adopting 'Flamsteed’s Ra/Dec framework which is based on equable 365/366 days of the calendar system and then tried to pass it off as the orbital period of 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes but I do not even have to go that far.

I can just present modern time lapse footage of the insight of Copernicus (understood by Galileo and Kepler) based on the Earth overtaking the outer planets thereby resolving the apparent backward motions of the other planets in our and their common orbit around the central Sun -

apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

Newton botched this and any person here with the slightest shred of intuitive intelligence will spot that Newton’s approach to and resolution for the backward/retrograde motion is wrong -

“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct,
sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct…” Newton

There is some hold that guy has on the minds of people like nothing I have ever seen,even when I bring the actual documents of Copernicus and Galileo in front of people there is not the slightest indication that they can spot the difference between the correct view and the mutation Newton introduced,a mutation so bad that it makes it impossible to appreciate the actual reasoning of Copernicus and the insight.

 

[DavWan]

Darwin, like almost all Europeans of his time, assumed Europeans were superior. His theory gave him no reason to believe so; he took it as a given.

Ergo, sacred Darwinian Evolution had no racism in it?

Which is it? Darwin was personally a racist, but his theory was not? Does that make him complicit?

Or was he at least an accomplice here?

No. In fact, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenic idea were scientifically insupportable

.

I believe I said “some”. Not “all.” So I find this statement irrelevant.

Yep. Of course, there are people who kill and torture in the name of God, just as some did it in the name of science. This is not a reflection on Christianity. When one is evil, anything can be used as an excuse.

My point, I believe. However you do seem, whether you intend it or not to want to blame racism on creationists and deny the fact that Eugenicists did tend to take their theories from Darwin, whether or not he would have repudiated it.

Probably so. But consider what happened to Watson when he made a racist statement, and what happened to Henry Morris for a much stronger statement of racism.

Not all creationists are racists. Far from it. But they have tolerated it among their leaders.

And so have evolutionists. You can’t explain it away. Nor can you deny “Social Darwinists” were inspired by normal Darwinism.

Say some Creationists tolerate racism, and it is a reasonable statement (just like “some Evolutionists.”). Say “Creationists” (in general) and you are guilty of a fairly gross stereotype.