If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs [snipped . . .], and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilised nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.

So, it is fair to say that Darwin accepts the core eugenics thesis, and is here only moderating. Having made rhetorically very powerful points, a few closing words are used to soften the impact.
________

To unpack the rhetoric, ask: 1] HOW does a “civilised” nation see to the “increase in . . . the population” and especially to that of “ the number of men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties “? 2] In light of cited stereotypical examples [feckless Irishmen, stern and provident Scotsmen, Saxons and Celts], what is Darwin meaning by his terms? [Note here, that Englishmen are viewed in the Victorian cosmos of discourse, as Anglo-Saxon, and it is a commonplace that the Saxons etc defeated and displaced the Celtic peoples, with the Normans finally providing the upper crust under William the Conquerer. The Normans, of course, are descended from the Norsemen who settled in France. From this it is but a step or two to Balvatsky's Aryan man myth,the pickup that his had in certain circles in Germany, and its terrible consequences.]

Plainly, Darwin was in fact the first social darwinist, and his lines of thought had practical fruit that he probably would have been appalled by, never mind his earlier note [cf my nos 24 – 5] on how “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.” [From Ch 6]

In sum, Dembski has definitely not quote-mined. Further to this, the citation from ch 6 is far worse, and foresees just what was attempted in the name of Darwinism in the next 100 years – and does not flinch and censure such an inference as dangerously abusive of the darwinian thesis. That is even more telling on the desensitisation of basic conscience that the underlying worldview fosters.

GEM of TKI

I note your: Unfortunately, Darwin rather contradicts himself. Now, exegeting Darwin is actually a side-point, but since the “quote mining” accusation is so often used by those who attack Mr Dembski et al, it is worth speaking to it.

For, if we look at the narrative and rhetorical sequence in the passage, we can see that his use of : It is very difficult to say” comes long after he has established his own position. Consequently, on a fair reading he is here using what we call “cautious language” to leave wiggle room, rather than contradicting himself. We can observe this by following the actual sequence:

1] He has already addressed intellectual faculties, during which he has cited his cousin Galton [the eugenicist] with approval: Mr. Galton says, “I regret I am unable to solve the simple question whether, and how far, men and women who are prodigies of genius are infertile. I have, however, shewn that men of eminence are by no means so.”

2] Next, he turns to morality: In regard to the moral qualities, some elimination of the worst dispositions is always in progress even in the most civilised nations. Malefactors are executed, or imprisoned for long periods, so that they cannot freely transmit their bad qualities . . . [This is plainly by immediate contrast with how he has approved Galton's remark on fertility of eminent men.]

3] Tellingly, he then says: With civilised nations, as far as an advanced standard of morality, and an increased number of fairly good men are concerned, natural selection apparently effects but little . . . [This of course sets up the “need” for artificial selection to “weed out” undesirable genetic types from the human population, the key rationale of eugenics. His references to black sheep and to domestic animal breeding make this plain.]

4] Having done this, he then introduces: 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 [This is of course, the idea 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 . . . Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,*(2) they produce many more children.” ]

5] He then cites: as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot . . . passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him.

6] Darwin MODERATES: There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency . . . That is, he accepts the general point but thinks it is not as forceful as his cited sources see it.

Pausing . . .

“It’s most difficult to say”

Yet then proceeds to make a clear case for the reason he claims is difficult to come up with

“on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.’

First, sorry on an uncliosed italics tag.

Second, I should note on NDT, that in expressing reservations, I am speaking about the way it is articulated from microevolution to macroevolution and the problems it has relative to evidence and testability [de facto].

GEM of TKI

Some onward remarks are plainly needed.

First, though, Descent of Man is available in html here, which should help with texct string searches — as I used in Nos 24 – 5 above. The quote in question comes from Ch 5, which bears the inadvertently ironic title: “On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties”:

In short, Motthew is quite correct in 32 to observe: Darwin was not trying to outright contradict Greg and Galton, he was advocating a weaker version of their theory.

Worse, a glance at where Darwin goes in the very next chapter, as I cited in 24, and his sentiments in the infamous 1881 letter, show that his own sensitivity to the moral implications of his thought were utterly worn down. Only such can explain his cool prediction of mass genocide without stricture as he calmly goes on to his next point. Nor, did his prediction fail insofar as attempts were concerned — over 100 millions died under secularist tyrannies in the name of “progress” over C20. Indeed, the British, in S Africa were the first to invent the concentration camp, used against the Boers. Not to mention the sad fate of Ota Benga, the man exhibited in a cage in a zoo as though he had been but one step up from the apes.

So, while I think NDT and the broader evolutionary materialist research programme are poor science for many reasons [LeeS, kindly cf the linked through my name], I also have excellent reason to see the associated worldview of evolutionary materialism and its undermining of morality and degradation of the value of the individual human life as dangerous threats to us all.

And, that is in part what the Darwin quotes are about: Darwin was plainly the first social darwinist.

Such caveats should moderate us in the ongoing attempt to make Darwin into a secular saint. [In short, we need to come to terms with the reality of the man, not make him into a secular saint. In particular, I am wondering if those who were so busily celebrating Darwin Sunday the other day would have been so enthusiastic had they known of some of the racist, classist, eugenics-laced texts excerpted above?]

GEM of TKI

BTW, this all has absolutely nothing, nada, diddly-squat to do with whether evolution is good science.

—
If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is most difficult to say why one civilised nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence. Corporeal structure, except so far as vigour of body leads to vigour of mind, appears to have little influence.

He was instead describing the views of “Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton.”

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 [lengthy reference omitted-Jasper], 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. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan [lengthy reference omitted-Jasper], they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. 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.

The rest of the context that Dr. Dembski unfortunately omitted can be found here (a .txt file).

I was surprised by this seemingly blatant misrepresentation of Darwin’s work. But after repeatedly reading the original passage I’m going to have to politely disagree with this fisking of Dembski.

Darwin was not trying to outright contradict Greg and Galton, he was advocating a weaker version of their theory. At the next paragraph, Darwin begins his analysis: “There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency…”

But shortly, Darwin gives his conclusion of the matter:

“If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world…”

While Dembski was less than careful in contextualizing the quote, I think it is rather you who has misrepresented Darwin’s position by claiming that he was arguing against Greg and Galton, rather than arguing for a less absolute form of it.

Perhaps this is an honest mistake personaly I don’t know how you could have made it. It seems to me that you’re deliberately misleading your readers.

I could be wrong. ??

This was most assuredly perceived to be true in the past.

“It was also set to music. ‘There’s nothing surer’, ran the lyrics of one of the most popular songs of the early 1920s, ‘The rich get richer and the poor get – children’”