Social Darwinism and World War I

[klaus54]

Jorge,

1) What did Chuck mean by "races"?

2) The prevalent European attitude at Chuck's time and before was that Europeans were "superior".

This superiority complex hadn't a damned thing to do with the theory of evoluton. (~~cough~~ Hamite curse ~~cough~~)

3) For 2^(Gogolplex)th time -- the putative misappropriation of a scientific theory does not obviate the science.

Do you finally get it?

No?

I didn't think so.

Are your pre-teen Sunday School students learning their lesson? Giving them a quiz tomorrow?

K54

[rogue06]

It would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.

"“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.


Jorge

I'll get into this in detail when I get home and not on this #@%&# laptop

[rwatts]

Have you been 'sipping too much of the brew', Roland?

Jorge

I note your deafening silence Jorge:-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post93944

All you offered was an attempt at insult, then you left.

But you didn't bother to count the word "Newton" in that paper on the "dark side" did you Jorge. You don't want to know how many people have been killed and maimed thanks to the use of his theories, because, according to you, Newton in the preeminent creation scientist.

[rogue06]

Race, as used by Darwin and 19th century naturalists, refers to distinct populations within specific species, and generally not to human races. Like his contemporaries Darwin tended to uses words like "race," "sub-species," "variety," and similar expressions in an interchangeable manner when discussing animals and plants.

For instance, on page 33 of the "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (OOS) you can even see an instance where he does exactly this a couple times in the same sentence:

Source: On the Origin of Species, chapter 1

"When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species."

© Copyright Original Source

And AFAICT, even today biologists still use terms like "racial variant" when discussing different populations within species.

As an aside this demonstrates that the "races" mentioned by Darwin in the subtitle of the "OOS" were not human races.

That Darwin wasn't referring to different human races in the title is evident by the fact that the "OOS" hardly ever even refers to humans at all and does not get into human evolution. IIRC, the first use in the "OOS" refers to the term races is to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants" mentioned above.

The "races" Darwin mentions here were things like assorted pig and pigeon breeds, cabbage and types of mollusks meaning that the charge of racism based solely on the title is absurd.

In fact when it comes to humans, in "The Descent of Man," Chapter 7, Darwin refers to them as the "so-called races of man" on several occasions including the opening sentence.

As noted, it is in the "The Descent of Man" that Darwin writes of the various races of man stating that:

Source: The Descent of Man, chapter 7

Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

© Copyright Original Source

First, again note how he equates species and race here. This is important since one of Darwin's most radical ideas was to insist that all of mankind is but one species (or, as we see by the interchangeability of the word, race) descended from a common ancestor. He received a lot of grief over this especially from racists like Louis Agassiz who maintained that the races were created separately and others who were horrified that whites were even the same species as blacks.

In fact, in 1863 Darwin’s supporters rallied against the view proposed by the Anthropological Society of London that "Negroes" were a separate, inferior species that deserved to be enslaved.

Second, Darwin seems to be subtly (or not so subtly) mocking the idea of dividing humanity up into two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, fifteen, sixteen, twenty-two, sixty, sixty-three or however many "races" as other "capable judges" have done. And note that those who were sub-dividing humanity up in such a manner were generally creationists of one stripe or another.

Third, again as noted above, for the most part it appears that Darwin didn't like to describe humans as belonging to different races which is why he often wrote about the "so-called races" of man or men. Two quick examples:

"It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men."

"So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated"

Though he still employed the term probably because of its common usage.

Fourth, notice in the above quote from "The Descent of Man" how he points out the problem with even trying to divide humanity into separate races in "that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." The point being that Darwin viewed the differences between human races as superficial saying that there were wider differences within a race than between them.

Later, modern genetic studies have confirmed Darwin's misgivings having demonstrated that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically. IOW, genetic analysis has revealed that the vast majority of variation between humans correlates little, if at all, with any supposed racial boundaries.

Meaning that all humans are only one biological race which has led modern biologists to conclude that race isn't a valid biological classification.

Finally, in reference to your quote about savage races in post 193, Darwin was merely employing the standard lexicon of his time. It was a term that everyone, from Popes to Presidents, used. Further, it should be noted that in a few cases the tribes encountered were incredibly savage. A few were cannibals for instance.

Moreover, he was referring to cultures not genetic differences as he noted that all societies, both great and small, have arisen from "savages" and "barbarians."

And once again note that Darwin repeatedly referred to the "so-called races of men" because he didn't accept such boundaries though he would use them because it was common practice. Much like today after science has used genetics to expose that such classifications are entirely arbitrary and bogus -- although we still continue to use them.

[rogue06]

"“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.

I want to deal more with this quote since it is so often misused by evolution deniers to paint a false picture

The fact of the matter is that Darwin never promoted the extermination of anyone since such a thing is diametrically opposed to everything he stood for. In fact, during his travels on the HMS Beagle Darwin witnessed attempts to exterminate indigenous populations most notably in Argentina where he describes the perpetrators as "villainous," "banditti-like" and "inhuman" and asked "Who would believe in this age that such atrocities could be committed in a Christian civilized country?"

Moreover, history has repeatedly taught us that technologically advanced societies either exterminate or assimilate more primitive cultures. That is an unfortunate fact that Darwin was pointing out.

That this is the case can be seen by taking a look at the quote in context:

Source: Descent of Man, chapter 5

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized 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 civilized 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.”

© Copyright Original Source

This is extracted from a relatively technical argument concerning the reality of species wrt to humans and whether or not there still should be distinct species. Darwin was ultimately concluding the answer is no and is basically contending here that there is no simple unbroken line of intermediary forms since breaks are formed by extinction.

And it appears that after 140 years since publishing Descent Darwin seems to be correct at least in his assessment that the “anthropomorphous apes” are indeed being driven into extinction as their numbers dwindle as do their habitats. It appears that they will, at some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, be no longer around.

His experience with Tasmania while sailing aboard the Beagle after that island’s so-called Black War which exterminated the aboriginal population of Tasmania^[1] certainly justified his concerns that the same thing would happen to other native peoples at the hands of the "civilized races."

Further, atrocities like the forcible deportation of Native American tribes, resulting in the Trail of Tears was also taking place about this time and the forced Long Walk of the Navajo had taken place just a few years before "The Descent of Man" was published while Argentina’s Conquest of the Desert was just gearing up. There were other similar genocidal conflicts like the ethnic cleansing of the Circassians by the Russians not to mention smaller but just as vicious slaughter of native populations in the Pacific and Africa.

No, Darwin had many reasons to fear that natives will end up getting exterminated by the "civilized races." Further, as we can see he wasn't entirely wrong. I don’t think anyone can deny that even today we can still see more technologically and militarily "advanced" cultures either destroying or replacing the less advanced ones.

As an aside, Darwin was also merely echoing a common view of both humanitarians and apologists for imperial expansion that was already many decades old that primitive people were inevitably doomed at the hands of the “civilized races.” Going back to the genocide committed against the native Tasmanians it was casually described by Edward Curr as having ended “as all such matters have ended in other parts of the world, by the extermination of the weaker race."

OK, now that we established the context and some background, perhaps it should next be noted that Darwin was not in any way urging anyone to commit genocide. In fact, there is nothing in Darwin's words to support (and much in his life to contradict) the implied claim made by those misquoting him here that he wanted anyone exterminated.

Instead, he was merely noting what appeared to him to be an obvious fact, based as noted above in no small part on the atrocities being committed in the name of conquest whether it was for European imperialism and colonial conquest or American "Manifest Destiny."

Darwin constantly listed what he thought were facts about the prospects of any given race, culture or society, but this was in no way an endorsement of what he thought should happen. In fact, and to the contrary he clearly states that to act in a way so as to eliminate an "inferior" would result in doing enormous damage to our better natures:

Source: The Descent of Man, chapter 5

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind"

© Copyright Original Source

Further, his comments near the conclusion of that work that...

Source: The Descent of Man, chapter 21

Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man's nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, etc, than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense."

© Copyright Original Source

...show that while such oppression comes to the human race as a force of nature, other forces like morality, religion, and the capacity for reason are still far more important in determining how we treat each other.

To continue to assert that Darwin was urging the extermination of others here is at the very least committing the naturalistic fallacy of confusing statements of "what is" with those about "what ought to be." The way things are does not imply that’s how they ought to be. That’s akin to arguing that if someone broke their leg then it should stay broken. Again “is” does not mean “ought.”

I guess the overall point being that evolution is descriptive. It is ignorant to think that evolution prescribes or proscribes the use of brute strength to resolve every problem that comes up whether in nature, society or whatever.

IOW, evolution describes, not prescribe. It merely attempts to tells how things are, not how they should be.










1. Writing about the war, Darwin noted that the Tasmanians were the group that was better fit to the natural environment, and hence superior to the Europeans, evolutionarily speaking.

A common YEC claim is that Darwin’s work was used to justify the slaughter of Tasmanian natives (AnswersinGenesis had a little cartoon/comic depicting a teacher showing the remains of an indigenous Tasmanian person in a museum saying they were slaughtered because evolutionists wanted to collect their skins and skulls). That genocidal campaign began in 1805 and had essentially ended in 1831. IOW, a genocidal massacre which allegedly was inspired by the ToE began 4 years before Darwin was even born and ended the same year Darwin boarded the Beagle – prior to his formulating the ToE and nearly 30 years before he published it.

[Jorge]

Race, as used by Darwin and 19th century naturalists, refers to distinct populations within specific species, and generally not to human races. Like his contemporaries Darwin tended to uses words like "race," "sub-species," "variety," and similar expressions in an interchangeable manner when discussing animals and plants.

For instance, on page 33 of the "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (OOS) you can even see an instance where he does exactly this a couple times in the same sentence:

Source: On the Origin of Species, chapter 1

"When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with species closely allied together, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species."

© Copyright Original Source

And AFAICT, even today biologists still use terms like "racial variant" when discussing different populations within species.

As an aside this demonstrates that the "races" mentioned by Darwin in the subtitle of the "OOS" were not human races.

That Darwin wasn't referring to different human races in the title is evident by the fact that the "OOS" hardly ever even refers to humans at all and does not get into human evolution. IIRC, the first use in the "OOS" refers to the term races is to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and proceeds to a discussion of "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants" mentioned above.

The "races" Darwin mentions here were things like assorted pig and pigeon breeds, cabbage and types of mollusks meaning that the charge of racism based solely on the title is absurd.

In fact when it comes to humans, in "The Descent of Man," Chapter 7, Darwin refers to them as the "so-called races of man" on several occasions including the opening sentence.

As noted, it is in the "The Descent of Man" that Darwin writes of the various races of man stating that:

Source: The Descent of Man, chapter 7

Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.

© Copyright Original Source

First, again note how he equates species and race here. This is important since one of Darwin's most radical ideas was to insist that all of mankind is but one species (or, as we see by the interchangeability of the word, race) descended from a common ancestor. He received a lot of grief over this especially from racists like Louis Agassiz who maintained that the races were created separately and others who were horrified that whites were even the same species as blacks.

In fact, in 1863 Darwin’s supporters rallied against the view proposed by the Anthropological Society of London that "Negroes" were a separate, inferior species that deserved to be enslaved.

Second, Darwin seems to be subtly (or not so subtly) mocking the idea of dividing humanity up into two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eleven, fifteen, sixteen, twenty-two, sixty, sixty-three or however many "races" as other "capable judges" have done. And note that those who were sub-dividing humanity up in such a manner were generally creationists of one stripe or another.

Third, again as noted above, for the most part it appears that Darwin didn't like to describe humans as belonging to different races which is why he often wrote about the "so-called races" of man or men. Two quick examples:

"It is not my intention here to describe the several so-called races of men."

"So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated"

Though he still employed the term probably because of its common usage.

Fourth, notice in the above quote from "The Descent of Man" how he points out the problem with even trying to divide humanity into separate races in "that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." The point being that Darwin viewed the differences between human races as superficial saying that there were wider differences within a race than between them.

Later, modern genetic studies have confirmed Darwin's misgivings having demonstrated that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically. IOW, genetic analysis has revealed that the vast majority of variation between humans correlates little, if at all, with any supposed racial boundaries.

Meaning that all humans are only one biological race which has led modern biologists to conclude that race isn't a valid biological classification.

Finally, in reference to your quote about savage races in post 193, Darwin was merely employing the standard lexicon of his time. It was a term that everyone, from Popes to Presidents, used. Further, it should be noted that in a few cases the tribes encountered were incredibly savage. A few were cannibals for instance.

Moreover, he was referring to cultures not genetic differences as he noted that all societies, both great and small, have arisen from "savages" and "barbarians."

And once again note that Darwin repeatedly referred to the "so-called races of men" because he didn't accept such boundaries though he would use them because it was common practice. Much like today after science has used genetics to expose that such classifications are entirely arbitrary and bogus -- although we still continue to use them.

WOW!!! Speechless!!!

Figuratively speaking, you should be at least a Cardinal or a Bishop in the Church of Darwin.
Not often do I witness such blind devotion and fervent defense of the 'Faith'. WOW!

I did note how you ignored all of the other Darwin quotes - especially those related to sub-species and women. I also noted your avoidance of post # 185 - just as your comrades are avoiding it like the plague. Just as expected.

Jorge

[rogue06]

WOW!!! Speechless!!!

Figuratively speaking, you should be at least a Cardinal or a Bishop in the Church of Darwin. Not often do I witness such blind devotion and fervent defense of the Faith.

Jorge

It's called historical accuracy.

[klaus54]

WOW!!! Speechless!!!

Figuratively speaking, you should be at least a Cardinal or a Bishop in the Church of Darwin.
Not often do I witness such blind devotion and fervent defense of the 'Faith'. WOW!

I did note how you ignored all of the other Darwin quotes - especially those related to sub-species and women. I also noted your avoidance of post # 185 - just as your comrades are avoiding it like the plague. Just as expected.

Jorge

You SHOULD be speechless after Rogue's thorough thrashing of your Darwin-bashing strategy.

This post more than any other demonstrates that you are not interested in truth.

Does anyone out there ascribe even a smidgen of credibility to this clown?

K54

[Leonhard]

Yes, what the white Europeans did to the Native Americans was all very natural, in keeping with the survival of the fittest model. And very successful.

Hey seer, look closely at this post. You made at least three informal logical fallacies, but can you spot them and tell me what they are?

[rogue06]

WOW!!! Speechless!!!

Figuratively speaking, you should be at least a Cardinal or a Bishop in the Church of Darwin.
Not often do I witness such blind devotion and fervent defense of the 'Faith'. WOW!

I did note how you ignored all of the other Darwin quotes - especially those related to sub-species and women. I also noted your avoidance of post # 185 - just as your comrades are avoiding it like the plague. Just as expected.

Jorge

Avoid this?:

Truthseeker et al. .......... examine the above as just one of endless examples.

Note the deafening silence from the Evo-Faithful since I posted this.
Why? Simple - even their imagination fails them for evidence as damning as this.

Jorge

What was there to avoid?

And read your quotes again. I either addressed them or they show that what he describes could better be termed "cultures." Darwin held that all of humanity constituted a single species that shared a common ancestor.

And despite cultural differences he notes that we all come from "barbarians" and "savages" -- just that some cultures have risen higher (and yes being a typical Victorian English gentleman he presumed that British culture was at the highest point).

For instance Darwin compares the intellect of the Brazilian slaves with Europeans, and notes that the slaves are mentally and tactically as capable as the greatest of the Roman generals ("Voyage of the Beagle").

He wrote Thomas Wentworth Higginson, the commander of the Union's first battalion of freed slaves in the American Civil War, after reading his book "Army Life in a Black Regiment" (in which Higginson concluded that blacks weren't biologically inferior to whites) saying "I always thought well of the negroes" and how "delighted [he was] to have my vague impressions confirmed" concerning "their character and mental powers."

He wrote in a letter to John Stevens Henslow in 1834 that "I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him."

Darwin's first encounter with a black person was when he spent 40 hours learning bird-stuffing from a freed Guyanese slave named John Edmonston, who had tales to tell of plantation life and the rain forest beyond. John became, in Darwin’s own words, an "intimate" and (in his autobiography) "a very pleasant and intelligent man." Visiting Americans during this time were generally appalled at the sight of blacks being treated as equals on British streets, but Darwin showed no sense of ignominy at being taught by a "full-blooded negro."

His interaction with Edmonston confirmed Darwin’s belief that white people and black people possessed the same essential humanity. In "The Descent of Man" he cited their friendship as evidence for the close similarity between the minds of men of all races.

Unlike many of his time Darwin celebrated the color of Tahitians: "To see a white man bathing by the side of a Tahitian, was like comparing a plant bleached by the gardener’s art, with one growing in the open fields."^[1]

Finally, Darwin wrote "Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters."

Oh wait. That last quote comes from Henry Morris, the "father of the modern creationist movement" and founder of the young-earth Institute for Creation Research. While Darwin can be excused for his prejudices, being a man of his times (although he was incredibly enlightened for his times), OTOH Morris was still making statements like the one above in the 1990s when there certainly was no excuse.






1. Contrast Darwin's attitude toward the Tahitians and friendship with Edmonston to the remarks made by Louis Agassiz, who the YEC organization Institute for Creation Research (ICR) declares is an example of a Bible-Believing Scientist of the Past about being repulsed by being in the presence of a black person:

Source: Louis Agassiz, letter to family in Switzerland

"It was in Philadelphia that I first found myself in prolonged contact with Negroes; all the domestics in my hotel were men of color. I can scarcely express to you the painful impression that I received, especially since the feeling that they inspired in me is contrary to all our ideas about the confraternity of the human type [genre] and the unique origin of our species. But truth before all. Nevertheless, I experienced pity at the sight of this degraded and degenerate race, and their lot inspired compassion in me in thinking that they were really men. Nonetheless, it is impossible for me to repress the feeling that they are not of the same blood as us. In seeing their black faces with their thick lips and grimacing teeth, the wool on their head, their bent knees, their elongated hands, I could not take my eyes off their face in order to tell them to stay far away. And when they advanced that hideous hand towards my plate in order to serve me, I wished I were able to depart in order to eat a piece of bread elsewhere, rather than dine with such service. What unhappiness for the white race ―to have tied their existence so closely with that of Negroes in certain countries! God preserve us from such a contact."

© Copyright Original Source

[Truthseeker]

OK, what do YOU mean by it?

You caught me making a careless use of "Darwinism." I do not want to try to fix that and wish people would just forget that post.

[Truthseeker]

Truthseeker et al. .......... examine the above as just one of endless examples.

Note the deafening silence from the Evo-Faithful since I posted this.
Why? Simple - even their imagination fails them for evidence as damning as this.

Jorge

You are as specious as the writers for that rag.

[Jorge]

You are as specious as the writers for that rag.

That "response" doesn't even make sense.

Jorge

[klaus54]

That "response" doesn't even make sense.

Jorge

Look up "specious".

It fits your is/ought "arguments' to a "T".

K54

P.S. Paraphrase of a famous theological dilemma: Can Jorge create an argument so intellectually dishonest that even he can't win in his own mind?

It's one for the ages, and makes for a good campfire discussion.

[Method]

Truthseeker et al. .......... examine the above as just one of endless examples.

Note the deafening silence from the Evo-Faithful since I posted this.
Why? Simple - even their imagination fails them for evidence as damning as this.

Jorge

Can you please show me where in the theory of evolution where it commands that we should limit the breeding of those we deem less fit?

You might as well argue that Atomic theory was a valid justification for dropping a bomb on Hiroshima.