Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A complete Darwin quote with a brief translation

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Taken from Darwin’s “Descent of Man”

We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

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, even at the urging of 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 an overwhelming present evil.

So what was Darwin saying here?

First of all we need to know that Darwin’s big idea is that man shares a common ancestor with other mammals. Anatomically, we’re animals, specifically mammals. I don’t really care to argue with anyone who won’t acknowledge that man is a mammal. You’re simply irrational in that case and not worth further consideration. Darwin wasn’t the first to notice that humans are mammals.

But was he saying that there’s no difference at all? Absolutely not. He lays out the case that humans are animal in body and that due to that if follows that we would, in theory, exhibit the same quality in regard to selective breeding – undesirable traits could be bred out and desirable traits bred in. But Darwin doesn’t stop there. Only those who wish to demonize Darwin stop there. He goes on to say that selective breeding of humans, or failure to lend care to the sick, disabled, and injured could only be done by sacrificing “the noblest part of our nature”. Darwin wasn’t arguing FOR eugenics. He was arguing that while eugenics would theoretically work it would require that we degrade the noblest part of our natures to do it, that part which DOES distinguish us from our non-human mammalian relatives.

If there’s any real case to be made for Darwin and the holocaust it’s the opposite of what’s messaged in Expelled. The holocaust resulted from a failure to heed Darwin’s warning that eugenics could only be practiced by sacrificing the noblest part of our nature, the very part and only part that separates us from other animals. Those responsible for the holocaust, beginning with the eugenics movement in America, were the true animals. Those opposed were nobler than the animals.

Comments
[...] that DaveScot (also lovingly referred to as “DaveTard”) managed to utter something reasonable for once in his [...]Wow, They Can Disagree « Sum 1 to N
April 23, 2008
April
04
Apr
23
23
2008
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
DaveScot: No, it would not be okay to demonize it. Inanimate knowledge can’t be demonized. A demon is an animate object. It would be okay to demonize the higher race that would make use of the idea in that way.
i understand that you've criticised the Darwin-Hitler connection on this website, so i suppose this is more targeted at other people on here: 1. would it be okay to demonise the scientists who used Einsteinism to instead built nuclear power stations and used relativity to understand the universe? 2. would this demonisation, and misappropriation of nuclear physics by ideologies change the fact that e=mc^2? 3. in noting that nuclear physics has been misappropriated by regimes in the past, is this sufficient criticism of our current understanding of nuclear physics?alext
April 22, 2008
April
04
Apr
22
22
2008
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
"Thus the most knowing part of us is otherwise described as unlearned behavior. Care to give it another shot–and this time, the target is above your foot." The most knowledged of men only knows what that limited organ in his head has been given by biology and the generations prior. All behavior is learned behavior. ... Isn't it funny, I shake a bag of dog treats said dog will look with ernst, yet if I approach a dog I have never trained, or shown said treats to, the bag and he happens to get a wiff, he'll rip it apart and eat from it? One might say that any animals most basic instinct is self gratification, could you really say Archimedes inventions are any different? He wanted to be noticed... Humanity is vanity. We all love to look at ourselves as being special, ultimately though, conceptual thought, even about subjects such as dualism, I doubt is unique to our species. Of course you can't ask the dog now can you? lol... Point being yes some can rationalize relying purely on instinct, some may tell you all you have is instinct. Simply because you imply conceptual thought is seperate, does not mean it actually is. Behaviorism is droll all the same though...Stone
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT
If Einstein argued that it would be inevitable that a higher race would make use of e=mc^2 to exterminate everyone else with atomic weapons would it be alright to demonize such an idea? No, it would not be okay to demonize it. Inanimate knowledge can't be demonized. A demon is an animate object. It would be okay to demonize the higher race that would make use of the idea in that way.DaveScot
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
I actually agree with the sentiment that apparently led to this tangent, it would have been good if Expelled focused more on ID and less on Darwinism and Nazism. For example, after citing the case where Gonzalez was denied tenure go into some of the evidence having to do with the correlation between habitability and discoverability. A positive case could have been made against discrimination and censorship (These are interesting ideas worthy of research, let's look into them.) instead of a largely negative case (Those who censor are like socialists of various sorts.) It would be better to appeal to students want to know things that their professor may not be teaching them. It seems to me that professors who are socialists aren't going to change.mynym
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
Let’s separate the men from their ideas. Would you then demonize... e=mc^2.... If Einstein argued that it would be inevitable that a higher race would make use of e=mc^2 to exterminate everyone else with atomic weapons would it be alright to demonize such an idea? What if he falsely pointed to e=mc^2 in order to justify such an idea, wouldn't it be alright to point out that he was wrong? If he lamented the fact that everyone would be exterminated in such a way but some people who viewed themselves as a higher race came along who believed what he said about e=mc^2 and inevitable extermination by atomic weapons wouldn't it be okay to point out that Einstein's ideas were linked to their ideas? Eugenics was being practiced long before Darwin was born. Darwin added no additional rationalization for it. Darwin added the notion that artificial or natural selection could essentially create a new species of man. As I recall he even argued that artificial or natural selection would inevitably create differences so large that the new species of man would look down on others as we look down on apes.mynym
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT
“Thus the “most knowing” part of us knows that there is no rational ground for something based intirely on instinct.” You can certainly rationalize acting out purely on instinct. You are an end result of many different mechanisms reacting in unison. There is no free will and thus instinct is all you have…
Thus the most knowing part of us is otherwise described as unlearned behavior. Care to give it another shot--and this time, the target is above your foot.jjcassidy
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger.
LOL. More bad reading. Do we or don't we define species by who they can procreate with.
The only difference that can exist within the species must be...
Note the key phrase in there: "within a species..." Hitler is talking about how a fox seek foxes for mates and always the result of foxes mating is another fox. Apparently the stretch to reading this as "a fox has always been a fox" is not too great for you guys. Here's a funny thing. Take a look at this Google search on The fox remains always a fox. Note how 3 of the top 4 citations show "vol .ii ch. xi". Search the text of this page for "fox"; now search this one.. Notice how the error is propagated, with evidence that none of these "skeptics" are checking the source. That's funny.jjcassidy
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
I wasn't sure that would post. Here are the URLs: For the quote regarding Darwinism and eugenics in the Weimar Republic, see "SCIENCE AS SALVATION: WEIMAR EUGENICS, 1919-1933" at: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007062 For the quote regarding the war as a cover-up, see "Mentally and Physically Handicapped: Victims of the Nazi Era" at: http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/handic/handicapped.php I really don't see how anyone can take issue with the U.S. Holocaust Museum about this issue.Lutepisc
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
05:19 PM
5
05
19
PM
PDT
And the big idea connected to that is that of common descent, which Hitler explicitly rejected in Mein Kampf: Yet he still accepted sub species and the notion of lesser races as a real thing. Clearly so did Darwin in commenting on the civilized races.. Why is this argument still going? It can be said Hitler was a darwinist on some levels. It's a subjective comparison, a matter of opinion not fact. What unenlightened boob really thinks Darwin didn't sell this idea exceptionally well? Are we so ignorant to think Darwin's social influence on race didn't exist? Yes, he is a product of his time and the time he lived in accepted some forms of bigotry, but that does not demonstrate his ideology having no significance on helping define that era. More over, as "Dave" pointed out, simply because you do not create an idea, doesn't mean you cannot sell an idea or warp that idea in a new and completely horrible way. E=mc^2 is an excellent example... but noooo... we can't acknowledge that there may be alternate outlooks on something, that'd require us to THINK about what others are saying.Stone
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
So my hypothesis is that accepting Darwin’s theory leads to a heightened optimism about the prospects for eugenics, which further motivates people to be interested in such a project. It should be no surprise that so many leading Darwinists were interested in eugenics.
Nathan, I think your hypothesis is supported with plenty of data from the historians. Another way of saying it is that Darwin’s theory was the engine driving the technology of eugenics in Germany. Here is how the U.S. Holocaust Museum explains it:
Following Germany’s defeat in World War I and during the ensuing political and economic crises of the Weimar Republic, ideas known as racial hygiene or eugenics began to inform population policy, public health education, and government-funded research. By keeping the “unfit” alive to reproduce and multiply, eugenics proponents argued, modern medicine and costly welfare programs interfered with natural selection–the concept Charles Darwin applied to the “survival of the fittest” in the animal and plant world. In addition, members of the “fit,” educated classes were marrying later and using birth control methods to limit family size. The result, eugenics advocates believed, was an overall biological “degeneration” of the population. As a solution, they proposed “positive” government policies such as tax credits to foster large, “valuable” families, and “negative” measures, mainly the sterilization of genetic “inferiors.” Eugenics advocates in Germany included physicians, public health officials, and academics in the biomedical fields, on the political left and right.
This was during the Weimar Republic, which abuts Hitler’s election in 1933. During the Nazi era, government policies moved from forced sterilization to euthanasia to racial cleansing, which they saw as merely applying ever more sophisticated and effective technologies to achieve the same ends: the improvement of the race. The war provided both a cover-up and rationale for “speeding up the process.”
In 1935 Hitler stated privately that "in the event of war, [he] would take up the question of euthanasia and enforce it" because "such a problem would be more easily solved" during wartime. War would provide both a cover for killing and a pretext--hospital beds and medical personnel would be freed up for the war effort. The upheaval of war and the diminished value of human life during wartime would also, Hitler believed, mute expected opposition. To make the connection to the war explicit, Hitler's decree was backdated to September 1, 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland.
I hope no one thinks I’m blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, because I’m absolutely not intending to do that. But Darwin’s ideas clearly permeated and undergirded its rationale. I think this is evident in Expelled, where Stein asks the museum guide at the Hadamar Crematorium what motivated the whole enterprise. “Darwin,” she immediately replies. The guide, who may have no more that a high school education, is a good example—right or wrong—of what the rationale was understood to be. I also think the distinction between “natural selection” and “artificial selection” is at least somewhat arbitrary, especially in this case. If peppered moths are more vulnerable, say, to birds of prey because of their coloration, then the birds play a crucial role in the selection process. We call that “natural selection,” right (I’m not a biologist)? The result, supposedly, is a breed of peppered moth better equipped to survive. On the other hand, if we select several dogs with desirable characteristics and breed them in order to ensure a desirable breed of dogs, that’s “artificial selection,” right? To me, it looks as if the Weimar Republic saw itself as practicing something akin to artificial selection, and the Nazis saw themselves as practicing something akin to natural selection. They would see themselves in the role of the birds, I bet.Lutepisc
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
DaveScot: "Darwin’s contribution to science, his big new idea, was that natural selection causes change over time that eventually results in the formation of new species." And the big idea connected to that is that of common descent, which Hitler explicitly rejected in Mein Kampf: "The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed."Russell
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
In reading the following passage "but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil." what amazes me is how *weak* Darwin's negative comment about eugenics really is. He has slyly given all kinds of reasons for pursuing artificial selection in the case of human beings, and his apparent rejection of it is so *lukewarm* that it may as well not be there. It reminds me of Shakespeare's Antony rousing the crowd against Brutus while repeatedly telling them "Brutus is an honourable man". In the same way, Darwin excites his reader's interest in eugenics, while paying lip-service to the "noblest part of our nature."Leo Hales
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
[...] title, this is not a cynical post. Something important happened at Bill Dembski’s blog, Uncommon Descent. It is tempting to make fun of the actors in this drama, but I choose not to. I view this as a [...]Darwin Central » Blog Archive » Hell Freezes Over At Uncommon Descent
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
"It has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of species through natural selection and everything to do with artificial selection for the preservation/elimination of desirable/undesirable traits." Dave, I think that eugenics got a huge boost from Darwin's theory of the origin of species. Once you accept Darwin's theory of the origin of species, you cannot help but marvel at how powerful the process of natural selection is. And then the thought arises very naturally: if we allow unfit individuals to reproduce, then are we not undoing the exceptional work done by aeons of natural selection? And if natural selection can produce such amazing results, could not artificial selection produce amazing results for the betterment of the human species? So my hypothesis is that accepting Darwin's theory leads to a heightened optimism about the prospects for eugenics, which further motivates people to be interested in such a project. It should be no surprise that so many leading Darwinists were interested in eugenics.Leo Hales
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
"Thus the “most knowing” part of us knows that there is no rational ground for something based intirely on instinct." You can certainly rationalize acting out purely on instinct. You are an end result of many different mechanisms reacting in unison. There is no free will and thus instinct is all you have... Man's divinity is fabricated out of the necessity to escape objective reality, and is no more real than the three little pigs.. The most knowing part of you is an instinct, it's an inborn trait thus instinctual.Stone
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
What Darwin did was to create a theory in the light of which natural selection could be seen as a very powerful and potentially positive force. If natural selection can create humans, with all their intelligence, from simple life-forms, then it is a very powerful force in nature, and one which potentially has very admirable effects. If that is the case, then it is very natural for people to think that it is worthwhile to give natural selection a helping hand. The good of the human species is at stake after all, and preventing inferior human specimens from breeding can be seen as no worse than amputating a gangrenous limb to prevent a person from dieing. Darwin managed to make natural selection look far, far more positive than it actually is, and that is surely the climate of opinion in which eugenics could take hold. I do not know how to take Darwin's views in the passages quoted by Dave Scot: it is always possible that he merely feels it necessary to pander to the prevailing sentiments of Victorian Christianity, in order not to have his views denounced as completely monstrous.Leo Hales
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Explaining 'humanity', scientifically or otherwise, is is/also philosophy with moral implications. Chemistry, physics, whatever is not to 'blame' for any 'evil' but if they are our creators then people are not special. Any treatment of biological matter, us included, is entirely consistent with a materialistic view. Perhaps the highest application of darwin would be to practice eugenics, genocide, selective breeding etc. against those lacking “the noblest part of our nature” ushering in utopia on earth.butifnot
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Wow, Dave...excellent post!godsilove86
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
Charlie Darwin did not invent racism any more than he invented evolution or the idea of common descent. He was a child of his times and philosophical milieu as much as anyone else is. This has been my point all along. Nothing Darwin wrote that could be rationalized as justification for racism was new. The anti-miscegenation laws dating back at least to 16th century colonial days in the U.S. are the smoking gun. So too are all the mass killings throughout recorded history of people whose only sin is not belonging to the group that's doing the killing. The Aztecs IMO were the bloodiest of the lot although there's so much blood in man's history it's difficult to say which was the worst. If the point is simply that science can be used for evil when not restrained by moral imperatives then I certainly won't disagree. Einstein remarked on this: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Eugenics was being practiced long before Darwin was born. Darwin added no additional rationalization for it. Darwin's contribution to science, his big new idea, was that natural selection causes change over time that eventually results in the formation of new species. Everyone already knew at the time what could be done through artificial selection to cause change within the same species. Everyone knew at the time that animals compete and the stronger ones survive. Eugenics is based on the latter not the former. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of species through natural selection and everything to do with artificial selection for the preservation/elimination of desirable/undesirable traits.DaveScot
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Dave, It's a difference without an objective difference. Look, I get the point: Charles Darwin was a decent man who carried his sympathy for his fellow man to the end. That doesn't mean anything. The stratification of opinion that characterizes the modern age (in many ways owing to Darwinism) did nothing but decrease the value of Darwin's own intuitions. Those are opinons. Science is not done by copying the sympathies of the source, but by confirming (either by verification, or in worst cases by consent) the objective conclusions. So therefore we need to break down Darwin into what he obviously represents as opinion and what he represents as objective. What is "noblest" is conjecture. Science has not defined a gradient of nobility by which we can judge this. Everything he says about "nobility" can be rejected. Especially because it can be argued that "noble" comes from to know. And so in one sense "noblest" is "the most knowing". But how can we know things which are a product of "instinct". Following from this, we can "objectively" re-orient "nobility". Or just drop the word as a meaningless (per Vienna Circle) corrosion of the more important matter of knowing objectively. Why does Darwin invoke "instinct"? I infer that he is representing that it is not actually perceiving something, but coming to us in a somewhat inexplicably arbitrary fashion. Thus, "instinct" explains the widespread notion absent an objective basis. Thus the "most knowing" part of us knows that there is no rational ground for something based intirely on instinct. But still, Darwin portrays the role of the eugenicist as a "surgeon" "hardening himself" for an "operation". Thus, his POV of creating "evil" by eugenics is counter balanced by the analogy that he makes. He just comes off as weaker-kneed. All it takes is another POV. And with the equal value that all empirically-based worldviews have under modernism, it just has to be one that cannot as easily take this course which Darwin assesses as "highly injurious to the race of man" as "No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt". That is anybody with extended empirical knowledge will not doubt that by this "instinct" of sympathy, we injure our race. Again, that he compares the surgeon's role means that he invites a comparison between the harm done in the name of the cure balanced against the cost of the disease. And again, acting from these "facts" that Darwin clearly represents as empirical and logical, and ignoring what seems to be mainly his POV, from his particular suseptability to this common "instinct". Once he "established" the injury caused by of the poor and the "imbeciles" in a pseudo-objective sense, and established the "instinct" of sympathy, it just takes another POV, replacing the weak-kneed status-quo preference with any POV less tolerant of the "injury". It would naturally be more eugenic. Darwin's sympathies don't ultimately matter. That he attributes it as "instinct" means that as a reflexive action, it could be moderated with more input, more insight. It suggests that "the more knowing" nature is to coldly assess who deserves sympathy and who doesn't. This quote would be taken out of context, if it were only to damn Darwin. However, it is better proof of how Darwin influenced the eugenicists than many quotes I have read. Charles Darwin also does not say that life has no meaning. However, Will Provine argues that this is a direct implication of Darwin's theory. Provine can be wrong or he can be right--despite Darwin's personal resolution on the matter. I doubt that Provine would find it rational at all to say that he must hold a value to life, if Darwin did. He might likely see that as a matter on which he could correct CD. Same thing with the Germans, in the age of eugenics: subjected to the indignity of the imposed Wiemar republic, and what that relative imposition implied about the fitness of the German race and nations, they might see a more pressing need to pick up that scalpel. Progressivism combines that same stratification with the utmost in tolerance of all radiating POVs, if all the POVs are assessed as equal in observance of the first order knowledge. Often amounting sometimes in an unchecked relativism. Without a holocaust as an object lesson, even the worst eugenics become nothing more than an "arguable proposition" of equal value.jjcassidy
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT
DaveScot wrote:
Don’t be a lightweight. Tackle the hard one. How is blaming the holocaust on “The Descent of Man” any different than blaming the Spanish Inquisition on “The New Testament of Jesus Christ”?
In The Descent of Man, Darwin affirms that races of men are different, some being closer to apes than others. He also expresses the idea that these "lower" races will be exterminated in favor of the Caucasian race, in order for the Caucasian race to advance beyond even the level it stood in Darwin's eyes at the time. This of course is an echo of his description of how animals diversify and "improve". This was in turn echoed by the Nazis. They started on their own people before moving on to the Jews, Slavs, Roma, etc. This is an extremely easy pattern to discern. Even angry highschoolers can see it. The only ones who can't see it, apparently, are those who are too educated to believe Darwin was a fallible human being like the rest of us. The Spanish Inquisition had to ignore the main basis for Christianity and many, many words spoken by Jesus as documented in the New Testament in order to perform their ghastly work. In addition to Charlie's excellent example above, there is:
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[a insult in Aramaic]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Summary: The Nazi actions were consistent with Darwinism. The Inquisitions' actions were not consistent with Christianity. That's the difference.angryoldfatman
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
I think there needs to be several distinctions made: 1. Darwin (the person) 2. Darwinism (the overarching theory) 3. Compatible implications and hypotheses (Eugenics in this case) After all, ID proponents commonly make distinctions between Bill's personal beliefs (category 1), core ID itself (category 2), and theological statements and hypotheses like front-loading (category 3).Patrick
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Hi Dave, Thanks for scooping these comments out of the filter. Just because Darwin was a racist and his science provided a justification for racism does not mean that he invented racism. It doesn't even mean he was any worse a racist, or even as bad a racist, as others of his time. I am not blaming Darwin for racism any more than I am blaming him for the holocaust. I'm not blaming him for anything. I agree that we are supposed to be supportive of academic freedom here. Please hear that I am not demonizing, blaming or shutting down. In support of academic freedom I am answering a factual statement about Darwin's writings. Darwin did not invent racism any more than he invented evolution or the idea of common descent. He was a child of his times and philosophical milieu as much as anyone else is. I'm not going to go into how the following generations were charged by his philosophical contributions but rather will rest here as your objections aren't really flowing from my responses.Charlie
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Charlie So we're back again to Darwin being the inventor of racism with your conclusion: He indicated as well that the elimination of the men closest to apes would improve man’s evolutionary progress. So what was the rationale behind the anti-miscegenation laws that predated Darwin by 200 years? Darwin didn't invent racism. He talked about it as an academic. I seem to recall we're supposed to be supportive of academic freedom here.DaveScot
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Presuming that this and my previous comment will come out of moderation I add one more point. If Darwin was right then there is no one to vilify, much less Darwin himself, because nobody did anything wrong. If our morals were shaped by natural selection then they are, as Darwin said, accidental features which could have been otherwise. In the same way our intellectual facilities, derived as Darwin said, from the brain of a lower mammal, are the end result of natural selection. And Darwin said that we could, and, indeed must, suffer the evils assessed by our naturally selected morality in order to continue to progress. Being natural beings in the natural order we have no right to expect to escape the evils of natural selection which must befall all of evolved life. It follows then, that we can actually do no wrong. Whatever we do is mandated by the only authority, and that is nature, which tells us "either or" there is no moral difference. And while we can't get an "ought" from the "is" of nature we most certainly cannot get an "ought not". So it is only a mistake that that any of us think there is anything wrong with eugenics or genocide, either morally or intellectually. There is no authority but nature to rule, and the only standard we have - our feelings - are incidental and not to be trusted. And we have no right to think we should not set them aside in the first place. On the other hand, taking the New Testament as the truth, one can actually be wrong in relationship to the standard. Since we know that people can be wrong we know that Darwin was wrong.Charlie
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
Hi Dave, 1) I've repeatedly said this is not about blame. I am answering a factual point you raised in the OP and I dispute your findings that Darwin warned us against sacrificing our noblest part or that people who note this are demonizing him. 2) My rationale on Darwin:Darwin said that man has achieved his present high level by constant application of natural selection. He said that it would be evil to ignore our (incidental) moral tendencies and fail to help the infirm. But he also insisted that the infirm were hindering man's evolutionary progress and that contingent good could come of perpetrating such evil. He showed us also that there is good reason to suffer such evils, and that would be the continued evolutionary progress of mankind. He indicated as well that the elimination of the men closest to apes would improve man's evolutionary progress. Darwin provided all of the ingredients and reasoning for genocide and eugenics. All it takes is that a person answer one question in the affirmative (with Darwin) and that is "should we desire continued progress?" If the answer is yes then Darwin has laid out a solution. And, evil though it may be, we actually have no right to expect to escape such natural evils. 3) I see no such connection with the New Testament to the Inquisitions. The "idea" behind the New Testament is found in John 3:16. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16;&version=9; I see no logical way to construe this as meaning that people ought to be tortured or murdered in Christ's name. The example of Jesus and of His disciples was to suffer themselves, even to death, to save people and to bring them the truth. I see no connection from this to killing people for failing to heed the truth. The message of the Bible is that even while we are sinners and have separated ourselves from God He loved us so much that He sent His Son to die for us. The greatest commandment of the Bible is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, and your mind, and to likewise love each other. That people twisted the New Testament to support killing, or even misconstrued it in such a way, does nothing to draw a logical line remotely like the one that we have with Darwin. 4) Don't blame me for the religious turn this thread took.Charlie
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
"Don’t be lightweight. Tackle the hard one. How is blaming the holocaust on “The Descent of Man” any different than blaming the Spanish Inquisition on “The New Testament of Jesus Christ”?" Yeah he's allowed that to become a bigger issue by not admitting fault. The longer you go without correcting a mistake, more it will haunt you. Men are cursed by their own ego, they see their line of thinking and when it goes unchallenged they begin to lose perspective. Perspective requires contrast, contrast takes two view points, some people surround themselves with an orthodoxy and never get out. They see their light, their truth, and that's all they see. A monkey might peer at the moon's reflection on the water of a still lake, the deeper it reaches it's hand, the closer it thinks it's getting, but ultimately the moon has always been above him and he's becoming more distant from it. The harder he searches the wetter he gets, eventually if he completely falls into this illusion he'll drowned in his own ignorance.Stone
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Charlie I see you took the low hanging fruit and avoided the better analogy I made about the New Testament and the Spanish Inquisition. You can't dismiss the New Testament by calling it a "technology". Don't be a lightweight. Tackle the hard one. How is blaming the holocaust on "The Descent of Man" any different than blaming the Spanish Inquisition on "The New Testament of Jesus Christ"? DaveScot
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
Hi Dave, I'm making sense and I'm not demonizing Darwin's ideas, either. Darwin provided a rationale (endorsed by Science, no less) which one could easily follow to genocide and eugencis. Dynamite is a technology, as MacNeill would point out, but there is no argumentation implied within it. There is nothing about dynamite that can be construed as a rational for killing people. There is in Darwin's scientific literature.Charlie
April 21, 2008
April
04
Apr
21
21
2008
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply