Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the face of systematic attempts to efface from public view, Darwin’s racism, a friend writes to offer quotes from Darwin’s Descent of Man:

Savages are intermediate states between people and apes:

“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro.

“The sense of smell is of the highest importance to the greater number of mammals–to some, as the ruminants, in warning them of danger; to others, as the Carnivora, in finding their prey; to others, again, as the wild boar, for both purposes combined. But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark coloured races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in the white and civilised races.”

“The account given by Humboldt of the power of smell possessed by the natives of South America is well known, and has been confirmed by others. M. Houzeau asserts that he repeatedly made experiments, and proved that Negroes and Indians could recognise persons in the dark by their odour. Dr. W. Ogle has made some curious observations on the connection between the power of smell and the colouring matter of the mucous membrane of the olfactory region as well as of the skin of the body. I have, therefore, spoken in the text of the dark-coloured races having a finer sense of smell than the white races….Those who believe in the principle of gradual evolution, will not readily admit that the sense of smell in its present state was originally acquired by man, as he now exists. He inherits the power in an enfeebled and so far rudimentary condition, from some early progenitor, to whom it was highly serviceable, and by whom it was continually used.”

[From Denyse: Decades ago, I distinguished myself by an ability to smell sugar in coffee. It wasn’t very difficult, with a bit of practice, and it helped to sort out the office coffee orders handily. My best guess is that most people could learn the art if they wanted to. Most human beings don’t even try to develop their sense of smell – we are mostly occupied with avoiding distressing smells or eliminating or else covering them up. I don’t of course, say that we humans would ever have the sense of smell of a wolf, but only that Darwin’s idea here is basically wrong and best explained by racism. ]

“It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only two separate fangs. … In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the Caucasian races.

“It is an interesting fact that ancient races, in this and several other cases, more frequently present structures which resemble those of the lower animals than do the modern. One chief cause seems to be that the ancient races stand somewhat nearer in the long line of descent to their remote animal-like progenitors.”

[From Denyse: The nice thing about teeth is that, if they give trouble, they can simply be pulled. I would be reluctant to found a big theory on the size or convenience of teeth, given that this  fact must have occurred to our ancestors many thousands of years ago.]

“It has often been said, as Mr. Macnamara remarks, that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilised races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.”
[From Denyse: Native North Americans often perished from human diseases to which they had not become immune in childhood. That is probably unrelated to the inability of anthropoid apes to stand cold climates.]

This includes the degraded morals of lower races:

“The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind…. A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. … With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish conquest. … It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered as honourable.”

“As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves. Most savages are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of strangers, or even delight in witnessing them. It is well known that the women and children of the North-American Indians aided in torturing their enemies. Some savages take a horrid pleasure in cruelty to animals, and humanity is an unknown virtue….. Many instances could be given of the noble fidelity of savages towards each other, but not to strangers; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, “Never, never trust an Indian.”

[From Denyse: If early modern Europeans in Canada had not trusted “Indians,” they would all have died off pretty quickly.]

“The other so-called self-regarding virtues, which do not obviously, though they may really, affect the welfare of the tribe, have never been esteemed by savages, though now highly appreciated by civilised nations. The greatest intemperance is no reproach with savages.”

“I have entered into the above details on the immorality of savages, because some authors have recently taken a high view of their moral nature, or have attributed most of their crimes to mistaken benevolence. These authors appear to rest their conclusion on savages possessing those virtues which are serviceable, or even necessary, for the existence of the family and of the tribe,–qualities which they undoubtedly do possess, and often in a high degree.”

[From Denyse: Charles Darwin, let me introduce you to Hollywood, before you say any more silly things about the supposed immorality of “savages.” ]

Making slavery understandable, though of course distasteful now:

“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.”

[From Denyse: Not really. In ancient times, slaves were typically unransomed captives in war, convicted criminals, or people who had fallen into irrecoverable debt. In Roman times, there would be nothing unusual about being a slave to someone of the same race as oneself. Slavery based on race alone was an early modern legal invention, aimed against blacks.]

Mass killings of savages is understandable as a type of species extinction:

“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. 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 civilised 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.”

“The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known….When civilised nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race…. The grade of their civilisation seems to be a most important element in the success of competing nations. A few centuries ago Europe feared the inroads of Eastern barbarians; now any such fear would be ridiculous.”

“[Flinders Island], situated between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles long, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it seems healthy, and the natives were well treated. Nevertheless, they suffered greatly in health….With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr. Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the natives.” [–Obviously the problem was trying to civilize these barbarians!]

“Finally, although the gradual decrease and ultimate extinction of the races of man is a highly complex problem, depending on many causes which differ in different places and at different times; it is the same problem as that presented by the extinction of one of the higher animals.”

Of course the degradation extends to the intellectual:

“There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,–as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body …Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Every one who has had the opportunity of comparison, must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes. There is a nearly similar contrast between the Malays and the Papuans who live under the same physical conditions, and are separated from each other only by a narrow space of sea.”

[From Denyse: I would imagine that the aborigines of South America felt some resentment over the loss of their continent to invaders from Europe … ]

” A certain amount of absorption of mulattoes into negroes must always be in progress; and this would lead to an apparent diminution of the former. The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy work as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races.”

“So far as we are enabled to judge, although always liable to err on this head, none of the differences between the races of man are of any direct or special service to him. The intellectual and moral or social faculties must of course be excepted from this remark.”

And… drum roll.., the main conclusion:

“The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind-such were our ancestors. These men were absolutely naked and bedaubed with paint, their long hair was tangled, their mouths frothed with excitement, and their expression was wild, startled, and distrustful. … He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins.”

[From Denyse: Sounds like a local rave to me. Not my ancestors (who were, as it happens, rigidly correct people, but my 2009 fellow Torontonians.)]

“For my own part I would as soon be descended from …[a] monkey, or from that old baboon… –as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.

[From Denyse: Yuh, I know. I know women who have divorced guys like that too … but, when founding a theory in science, it strikes me that … ]

And let’s not forget sexism!

“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman–whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands…We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on ‘Hereditary Genius,’ that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.”

“The greater intellectual vigour and power of invention in man is probably due to natural selection, combined with the inherited effects of habit, for the most able men will have succeeded best in defending and providing for themselves and for their wives and offspring.”

[From Denyse: Re women vs. men: Actually, if we leave Darwin’s obsession with natural selection out of the matter for a moment, we can come up with a simple explanation for the difference between men’s and women’s achievements. Men are far more likely to win Nobel Prizes than women – but also far more likely to sit on Death Row.

For most normal achievements, women will do as well as men, given a chance. Women do just as well as men at being, say, a family doctor, an accountant, a real estate agent, a high school teacher, etc.

It’s only in outstanding achievements – either for good OR for ill – that men tend to dominate. One way of seeing this is that the curve of women’s achievements fits inside the curve of men’s achievements, either way.

Natural selection does not explain this because most men who have outstanding achievements do not contribute a great deal to the gene pool as a consequence.

Either they produce few or no children, or their children do nothing outstanding. So Darwin did not really have a good explanation for this fact.

What should we do? Breeding of people and letting the weak die off:

“The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.”

“We civilized 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 civilized 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 himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”

[From Denyse: But how would anyone know who the “worst animals” are among people?]

Comments
Domoman, I wasn't blaming you for being ignorant, though I apologize if it came off like that. I was decrying the lack of true scientific discussion on these pages. I don't pretend that I am any better (indeed by commenting in this thread the way I did, I am probably worse). I just find it frustrating.Winston Macchi
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
Jerry (msg. #105): "Is anyone seriously debating that? That would be extreme. I can see how someone could come to the conclusion that the reason Darwin came up with his bogus conclusions was through his racist tendencies. But even with this bias in his thoughts, it does not automatically disqualify his theory. What disqualifies his theory is that it has no empirical backing for the main part of it whether he came by it through racist eyes or not." You are naive. Charles Darwin rejected the God of Genesis as Creator by 1837 (Autobio:85). He THEN suddenly "sees" a "similarity" between apes that he had been observing in the London zoo and dark skinned peoples. Evolution was accepted AFTER God is rejected as Creator. THEN based on pre-existing racism the theory is born. Richard Dawkins, IIRC, called Ronald Fisher the greatest scientist since Darwin. Fisher had no degree in biology and none higher than a B.A. But he was Professor of Eugenics (= white superiority). Nobel winner Darwinian biologist James Watson got caught recently saying Africans are not as intelligent as whites. The only surprise is that he got caught. All of his peers believe the same. You would have to be incredibly stupid to believe otherwise. Evolution is BASED on gutter racism: its starting point. Stop trying to be fair to Darwinists. They are all gutter racists. RayR. Martinez
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
jerry, We discuss substance all the time here. I find that sometimes that is true, and sometimes weeks go by with only posts on Darwin the Racist or Hitler, Darwin's best friend. Allen MacNeill has pointed us to many things over the last three years and none have supported any theory of macro evolution I'll have to take your word for that. ...would you send us to some obscure examples in the literature knowing that many of us would have trouble with the technical details. No, you would outline the results in all it glory and rub our noses in it. The substance is in the technical details. That is where the real info lies. And I have seen many people do this, but no response or a brush off. Plus, I don't care to rub your nose in anything, that isn't the point. There are whole sites on the web dedicated to proving naturalistic evolution as the explanation for life changes over the last 4.5 billion years and they send people here constantly but when they get here they have a case of amnesia. I find when they get here, they get ignored. We will eventually discuss endosymbiosis and what it means in the scheme of things. See comment #37. Fair enough, I took the liberty to check out that link. Tho only mention of endosymbiosis is: Perhaps some of the eukaryote’s organelles, such as the mitochondria, evolved via a symbiotic merger of an early eukaryotic progenitor and a prokaryote. In this endosymbiotic hypothesis, the eukaryote’s mitochondria is thought to be the descendant of an ancient prokaryote that was engulfed by the eukaryote progenitor. Afterwards, a symbiotic relationship is thought to have developed between the larger cell and its new organelle. But even this hypothesis addresses only a fraction of the complexity of the eukaryote cell. and so has nothing really to say on the topic. What I wish could be discussed every once and a while (and, of course, this is not my site so what I wish is totally meaningless, but there you go) is interesting new papers. Eg. http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/02/16/mcmaster.researchers.discover.new.mode.how.diseases.evolve and http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/02/17/what.a.virus.research.suggests.a.broader.definition.may.be.needed Both popular articles of papers (info on the source paper can be found in the article) The are neat, topical in this forum, and can be used to flush out ideas of how intelligent design happened, if it happened.Winston Macchi
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
This raises an interesting question. Was the reason that Darwin proffered his theory because he was a racist which it seems everyone admits. Despite the fact that the theory is true in some minor parts it is bogus in its major conclusion. The theory is accepted by a fair number of people but why. Was it originally because of the racist implications? For intellectual reasons did Darwin need these bogus conclusions. Was it cognitive dissonance that explains his conclusions. It did seem to have a good hearing amongst the eugenics crowd and I believe these are racists too. Can cognitive dissonance explain Darwin's theories popularity. We all know that Darwin may have become an atheist and was probably at best a Deist. So the theory has multiple cognitive dissonant uses for him. We all know that it is pushed today not because of its truth which has no backing but because of its atheistic implications. The racist implications have lost their import but not the atheistic ones. I often marvel at the gyrations that the anti ID crows goes through to justify their positions. Can cognitive dissonance explain it all?jerry
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Allen_MacNeill (msg. #3): "Even granting that Darwin was racist [SNIP....], how does this make him “wrong”? Wrong in what way? Wrong about his theory of evolution by natural selection? Wrong about his theory descent with modification?" It makes him wrong because AFTER he rejects God as Creator and Designer he then relies on his pre-existing racism to answer a human origin question that did not exist before. The point is that AFTER God is rejected as creator of Adam and Eve (late 1836-1837), Darwin THEN suddenly "sees" a "similarity" between apes and dark skinned peoples; that is, men of Tierra del Fuego and apes that he had been observing in the London zoo (Edward Larson, "Evolution: History of a Remarkable Theory" 2004:66-67). Darwinism is racism. All Darwinists are racists. To contend that apes first began to evolve into men in Africa is not science, it is gutter racism. Do you now understand? RayR. Martinez
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
"It was my understanding that we were debating whether the theory of evolution must automatically be considered false because of Darwin’s personal views on race." Is anyone seriously debating that? That would be extreme. I can see how someone could come to the conclusion that the reason Darwin came up with his bogus conclusions was through his racist tendencies. But even with this bias in his thoughts, it does not automatically disqualify his theory. What disqualifies his theory is that it has no empirical backing for the main part of it whether he came by it through racist eyes or not.jerry
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
So, you have set upand knocked over a strawman.
It was my understanding that we were debating whether the theory of evolution must automatically be considered false because of Darwin's personal views on race. What you've done is introduced a whole new debate (whether evolution is wrong based on entirely different criterion) and claimed that that was really what the debate was about from the beginning. Call it a strawman if it makes you feel better, but we both know it is you who are attempting to pull a bait-and-switch. I'll address the new topic tomorrow. I work third shift, and it's way past my bedtime.KRiS
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
Jerry, re: 37, I looked at the website and it has one immediate glaring error: the best evidence now suggests that eukaryotes are thought to have evolved from endosymbiosis of prokaryotes and archaea, not prokaryote and prokaryote, as he keeps suggesting. Many of the articles he quotes explicitly state this, so I am not sure how he missed it. the rest of the article boils down to the fact that there have been a lot of hypotheses about eukaryotic evolution. true enough, but most of them have dissappeared and only one really strongly supported one remains.Khan
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
The issue is not whether Darwin the man was or was not a racist [if he was not, in C19 England, he would have been very exceptional] but whether the theory he propounded has in it concepts and elements regarding race that Darwinists celebrating his 200th anniversary need to address, as a matter of getting to a true and fair view of the past 150 years of biology and its intersection with history, politics and ethics.
Very well said, KF. That gets to the nub of it.tribune7
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
Winston Macchi, Actually, I made that comment after I did some research into endosymbiosis, so it wasn't completely without warrant. I will do some more research, at least to satisfy you, but I'd keep quiet about blaming myself and JT for being ignorant. Especially JT, because at least he, based on what he understood from Allen, suggested that endosymbiosis has been observed.Domoman
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT
Sev: Kindly address the substance of Descent of Man, as cited, e.g. Ch 6 as excerpted. The issue is not whether Darwin the man was or was not a racist [if he was not, in C19 England, he would have been very exceptional] but whether the theory he propounded has in it concepts and elements regarding race that Darwinists celebrating his 200th anniversary need to address, as a matter of getting to a true and fair view of the past 150 years of biology and its intersection with history, politics and ethics. "You're another" arguments do not address that issue on the merits, and come across as playing the [im-]moral equivalency: turnabout shut-up rhetoric card. Absent facing the truth, there can be no reconciliation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
KRiS: no ti9me just nopw for more, but this one slice of the cake has in it the ingredients of the problem. re: Again, I ask, is it your contention that this proves that the theory is factually wrong? let's roll the tape from 92:
My thought on why Darwinism, paleo and neo-fails, runs along very different lines: a –> FSCI is in our general and exception-less observation produced by and characteristic of intelligence. b –> Cell based life, and body plan level biodiversity in major part imply increments in FSCI. So, they credibly are products of design not chance + necesity. c –> And indeed, while minor pop variations per usually gene transfer and/or loss of function mutations are empirically observed, no credible case of body plan origination as observed per C + N exists. And that is just as true now as it was in the days when CRD tried to reason from the analogy of artificial selection. d –> if origins of life and biodiversity were by evolutionary mechanisms, they were intelligently directed. [cf the always linked for details of my argument]
So, you have set upand knocked over a strawman. As to the observation claim, I am pointing out that the grand thesis of macro evo by RV + NS, lacks observational warrant. It is an inference to explanation of the unobserved, remote and unrepeatable past, and it runs into the central problem of not being able to account for the increments in bioinformation. (Biologists, qua biologists are not particularly expert on info theory.) We do have a very well-justified, observed source for FSCI, and chance + necessity it ain't. (These posts in the thread are cases in point.) Nor is 5- 600 MY for biodiversity, or 10 - 20 BY and 10^80 atoms or so for origin of cell-based life NEAR enough to begin to be search-space plausible. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Seversky: @85: If you have anything substantive to say in defense of Darwin, this would be a good time to do it. You might follow the lead of Allen MacNeill, who has attempted to do just that. The thread is coming to a close and you have yet to be heard from on that subject, which is, after all, the main theme under discussion. On the other hand, your disruptive and unfounded attacks on the Catholic Church do not speak to the issue in any way. Even at that, I have made it clear on several occasions that your sources are not credible and your arguments are not sound. In your last correspondence, you acknowledge that the Catholic Church has never supported slavery, and, in fact, that it has always opposed it. Even so, for some strange reason you continue to search for evidence to the contrary. Surely, you must know by now that I have more than a passing acquaintance with the subject and I can attest to the true facts in the matter. In keeping with that point, you say that you will concede the truth about the Catholic Church ask if I will concede that Darwin is not a racist. To that I can only say that you need to take up that subject with those who are making that argument. My presence on this thread has been limited to disabusing anyone of the notion that your comments about Catholicism have any merit. In any case, we should all have enough respect for the truth to acknowledge it unconditionally.StephenB
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
Eep...left my little tag on the front of my post. Ignore that "UD Post 2" doohickey.KRiS
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
UD Post 2
So, I think there is a serious case to be answered to, one that was conspicuous by absence this last Darwin Day.
I think we've gotten away from the personal views of the theorist and into the ethical implications of a theory. However, I think the same basic question still applies, and that is, does the fact that a theory can be interpreted in a way that justifies unethical behavior mean that the theory itself is factually wrong? In other words, do the personal views of the person interpreting the theory affect whether the theory itself is factual? In the interest of space, I'll just skip what I think about Hitler and eugenics. Suffice it to say I think it's a result of misunderstanding the theory. Anyway, let's assume for the sake of argument that the Theory of Evolution necessarily leads to such unethical behavior. Is it your contention, then, that this proves that the theory is factually wrong? (BTW, ditto on the call of Godwin's Law)
My thought on why Darwinism, paleo and neo-fails, runs along very different lines...
I can guarantee that if I respond to those points, it will balloon into something far beyond what I am willing to tackle at this time. I'll just ignore this for now.
Excuse me: we are talking of a claimed central theory of bio and its main claim, after 150 years in its various forms.
It seems that 150 years is always presented as such a very long time that we must have seen something by now. Meanwhile, the Cambrian Explosion is always presented as such a very short amount of time that it effectively disproves evolution. In other words, we should have directly observed in 150 years what took evolution the extremely short amount of time of only 5 million years to do. I liken this to hearing about the atomic theory of matter for the first time, walking out of the room, then turning around and walking right back in to say "You haven't actually seen an atom yet? That proves your theory wrong!" This is further complicated by the fact that any man-made experiment (such as Ev) is immediately discounted because it's man-made, which means it's designed, which means any observed CSI is a product of the designer (us) and not a product of the process being modeled. That means that no lab experiment is allowed...only natural occurrences count.
THERE IS NO GOOD OBSERVATIONAL BASIS. So, it is not evidence based.
I think what you mean is that there is no direct observational basis. However, it is very much evidence based. As I stated in my previous post there is such overwhelming indirect evidence that I believe it has a very good observational basis, even without the direct observation that you seem to require. What you are apparently claiming is that, unless you can observe something directly, no other evidence matters. Based on that logic, you must reject heliocentricity, because that has never been directly observed by anyone. The indirect evidence (for instance, predicting the movements of heavenly bodies, including, of course, the Sun itself) is so overwhelming that it's easy to forget that no one has ever actually been in a position to be able to directly view the Earth going around the Sun.
...then on the observational evidence we DO have, it did so by desiogn
This is based on the assumption that your points above (a, b, c, and d) are valid. Since I'm ignoring those for now, I will similarly ignore this.
The material ethical issue for this thread, as I just pointed out, is that the Darwinian view has no good grounds for an ethics of equality among men.
Again, I ask, is it your contention that this proves that the theory is factually wrong?KRiS
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
Winston Macchi said, "I suppose it allows you to continue saying that “no one has ever given us one piece of evidence that evolution has happened, no matter how many times we ask!”" You need to study human behavior more. Humans are remarkably consistent just as this comment of yours is one that has been seen before and so have Allen's comments. We discuss substance all the time here. Allen MacNeill has pointed us to many things over the last three years and none have supported any theory of macro evolution. They have been interesting and we have learned a lot from Allen but he himself admits that macro evolution does not have a model to support it. He recommended a book by Vrba and Eldredge on macro evolution just last week and I have ordered it and will read it but I don't expect to find anything of substance. He made a big deal over other books that have not affected ID in one iota. Either he does not understand the argument or he thinks he can befuddle us with technical details. Look at yourself. If you had an argument that would undermine our point of view would you say we do not respond to arguments when that is not true, would you send us to some obscure examples in the literature knowing that many of us would have trouble with the technical details. No, you would outline the results in all it glory and rub our noses in it. So what do you say. You claim we do not look at the evidence and thus imply we are ignorant. There are whole sites on the web dedicated to proving naturalistic evolution as the explanation for life changes over the last 4.5 billion years and they send people here constantly but when they get here they have a case of amnesia. They just cannot remember or explain their arguments. So what are we to say. We will eventually discuss endosymbiosis and what it means in the scheme of things. See comment #37.jerry
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
Winston --Someone, in this case Allen, is asked to provide evidence of observable evolution,<p I don't think anybody here doubts that evolution happens. What is doubted is whether it can do what some claim it can do.tribune7
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
1- Evolution is NOT being debated. 2- The way MACROevolution is defined YEcs aren't even debating that. 3- Serial endosymbiosis has been observed. 4- It has NEVER been observed to account for the differences observed between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. 5- I have been observed to swim to the bottom of a 12' deep pool. 6- Does that mean I can also swim down to the deepest part of the ocean?Joseph
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
JT and Domoman, You could actually go and look up the examples that Allen mentioned, that is, if you actually cared. I find this happens quite often around here. Someone, in this case Allen, is asked to provide evidence of observable evolution, he does so, and either no one notices or they mock without understanding, like yourselves. I suppose it allows you to continue saying that "no one has ever given us one piece of evidence that evolution has happened, no matter how many times we ask!"Winston Macchi
February 17, 2009
February
02
Feb
17
17
2009
05:06 AM
5
05
06
AM
PDT
Okay, Following up on points: 1] KRiS: First, thanks for responding. You come across in that response as being serious. That is important. 2] @ 81: he [CRD] was working with inaccurate data precisely because of his personal views. Essentially, given the evidence at his disposal in his day, the quoted text couldn’t necessarily be shown to be false. However, it wasn’t necessarily supported by the evidence, either. H'mm, on try 2 [managed to kill an earlier version . . .] let's roll back to 1859, with the help of Wiki:
Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species (published 24 November 1859) is a seminal work in scientific literature and a landmark work in evolutionary biology.[1] The book's full title is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In the 6th edition of 1872 the title was changed to The Origin of Species.[2] It introduced the theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection.
In short, CRD's central thesis from 1858/9 on was that "races" are the populations competing in a Malthusian world for existence [with extinction the price tag for losing], and that this is how species originate. Races that per Ch 6 Descent, originate through random variation, and even among humans undergo "natural selection." Then, as CRD used NS, that EXPLICITLY includes how human races may drive other human races [as well as species of apes] into extinction; i.e. what we have come to term genocide. Nor is that view novel with me, e.g. H G Wells' prophetic warning was premised on this reading of the inner dynamic. So were the motivations of the social darwinists, including the eugenics movement, which enjoyed decades of favour as a major SCIENTIFIC mocvement, including encoding into law. indeed, Hitelr's laws on eugenics, were modelled on American exemplars, as he explicitly said. Now,the fall of eugenics etc was only after the holocaust became well known. So, there is a big gap here in the account on Darwin + 200 K. further, pert the just-so story standard that seems to obtain so often for evo mat theories, there was abundant "evidence," as CRD listed [observe from Denyse above] and so the issue of soundness of method comes up. that does not touch on the question of the degradation of ethics thought he injection of the notions of inequality and life unworthy of being lived. A quesionthat has contributed to int eh case ofg the USA,t eh ongoing slaughter of 48 + million unborn children since 1873, at the rate of more than a 9/11 a day. So, I think there is a serious case to be answered to, one that was conspicuous by absence this last Darwin Day. 2] it’s pretty clear that he was working on the false assumption that different races were different species, and that this assumption was based in whole or in part on his own personal views. A closer reading will note that he was subtly distancing himself from these (I gather he opposed the idea that the different races were different species). His view is that competition is at the sub-specific, racial level, as well as between species: contrast genocide of races of men and extinction of apes. More to the point, science always is driven by provisional inferences based on what seems credible evidence among the guild of peers, and so by personal views and agendas of schools and movements. Science =/= truth or knowledge beyond correction. Thus aslo, at a given time, the politics of science may suppress truth and/or ethical responsibilities. And this lesson too was AWOL at the Darwin + 200 celebrations. 3] There doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe that “some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries” would be unlikely to be instantiated eventually. I certainly hope that you are not next going to claim that because this prediction has been invalidated, that therefore the entire theory of evolution is similarly invalidated. I would be sorely disappointed in you. Actually, the peculiar horror of the cite from Ch 6 of Descent, is that it nearly came true in 1939 - 45: 1 in 3 Jews in the world was dead at the hands of genocide in large part motivated by the then dominant reading of Darwinian theory, but without remaining ethical or prudential concerns that at least diverted some to eugenics [block "undesirable" births . ..] elsewhere. So, I 'ent so sure this prediction has not been at least in part substantiated as a self-fulfilling prophecy. [And Heine made a telling prediction in 1831 on the implications of Germany walking away form its Judaeo-Christian foundations per the ideas of the increasingly skeptical-secularist philosophers and scientists . . . ] My thought on why Darwinism, paleo and neo-fails, runs along very different lines:
a --> FSCI is in our general and exception-less observation produced by and characteristic of intelligence. b --> Cell based life, and body plan level biodiversity in major part imply increments in FSCI. So, they credibly are products of design not chance + necesity. c --> And indeed, while minor pop variations per usually gene transfer and/or loss of function mutations are empirically observed, no credible case of body plan origination as observed per C + N exists. And that is just as true now as it was in the days when CRD tried to reason from the analogy of artificial selection. d --> if origins of life and biodiversity were by evolutionary mechanisms, they were intelligently directed. [cf the always linked for details of my argument]
And this issue too is missing in action at Darwin + 200. 4] I suspect that it [empirically observed body-plan level evo] has not [been observed], since you seem quite certain in your incredulity, and I really have no reason to doubt that. At this point, it’s a prediction that has been neither confirmed nor falsified, and so it’s an open question. However, for me at least, there are enough independent lines of evidence supporting evolution to convince me that this, too, is likely to one day be observed. Excuse me: we are talking of a claimed central theory of bio and its main claim, after 150 years in its various forms. THERE IS NO GOOD OBSERVATIONAL BASIS. So, it is not evidence based. As to other lines of evidence supporting evo, the issue is: if life originated by evo mechisms,and diversified across body plans by same [cf issue on the Cambrian revolution of fossil life -- known to CRD and admitted as a challenge but he hoped fossils would turn up, they have not] then on the observational evidence we DO have, it did so by desiogn. In short, there is no good reason to argue for Lewontinian evolutionary materialism/ the precise form of evolutionary thought tha tis institutionally dominant, and that advocates would teach as thought there are no concerns, serious gaps in evidence and controversies. And, again, there is no serious discussion of this with a fair hearing of all sides, at Darwin + 200. 5] I have no reason to doubt your apparent conviction that such observations are not to be found in current or past scientific literature. And, K, what does that tell you on the real level of evidence for Evolutionary Materialism as a scientific paradigm? GEM of TKI PS: SB and Sev: ther is no doubt that many have done wrong in the name of ding good, including int eh church across the centuries. But in the churches [Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant], that was in plain opposition to the principles and spirit of gospel ethics,and as the gospel was put in the hands of the ordinary man in a book he could read, he struck out for freedom. And that too is vitally important. The material ethical issue for this thread, as I just pointed out, is that the Darwinian view has no good grounds for an ethics of equality among men. And, we should note that seriously.kairosfocus
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT
*EDIT* "and there's some fossils that ARE highly subjective"Domoman
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT
JT, "Did you see [43]? He says that the author of Peter Rabbit new that a lichen originated from an endosymbiotic relationship of two organisms." I could be completely wrong, but I'm thinking this is a case where the author knew that "a lichen originated from an endosymbiotic relationship of two organisms," much in the same way most neo-Darwinists also know that dinosaurs evolved into birds and mammals into whales. In other words: hey, we think this is how it happened, and there's some fossils that highly subjective and that may possibly support us, so we know it happened. If I'm completely wrong, I'm sorry for suggesting such a thing. I may have jumped the gun.Domoman
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT
....lists of quotes from The Descent Of Man do not prove [that] Origins was a thinly-disguised justification for racism, eugenics and genocide. Darwin was warned that the way he was "reasoning" against theism was dangerous, in fact some scholars argue that Darwin understood this quite well and basically worried himself sick over it. The problem is this, he thought just like you apparently do that some "pure" form of science exists devoid of subjectivity and sentience and that he should try to speak from a dead perspective. Note that the only way that you can have a truly "scientific" perspective devoid of sentience is to be dead. As a critic of this view of "science" pointed out it is impossible for living beings to consistently adhere to such a view:
The achievements which form the subject matter of biology can be identified only by a kind of appraisal which requires a higher degree of participation by the observer in his subject matter than can be mediated by the tests of physics and chemistry. The current ideal of “scientificality” which would refuse such participation would indeed destroy biology but for the wise neglect of consistency on the part of its supporters. (Scientific Outlook: Its Sickness and Cure by Michael Polanyi Science New Series, Vol. 125, No. 3246 (Mar., 1957), pp. 482)
...will you concede that the campaign to undermine Darwin’s theory of evolution on the grounds of his alleged racism is both based on a logical fallacy and a black propaganda campaign unworthy of a place on a website that claims to be devoted to science? The original post did little more than to quote Darwin extensively, this is simply a matter of knowledge. Why shouldn't people know about it? The only reason I can think of is that those who venerate Darwin actually understand that "pure" scientific knowledge cannot be totally separated from the "dirty" little humans that have a knowledge of it anymore than empirical evidence can be separated from sentience. So they have their "Darwin day" and so on and so forth and nothing is said about the supposed irrelevance of Darwin as a person. Where is the consistency? Given this lack of consistency it seems that everything positive about Darwin is to be woven into the mythology of progress typical to the Darwinian creation myth while anything negative about Darwin is denied and ignored. In the end it gets a bit ridiculous when someone like Allen argues that Darwinian theory is somehow responsible for promoting human equality. Is there historical evidence that once people generally denied equality but then when they heard about their genetic similarity then they concluded that they were equals? Maybe in an imaginary world the so-called "theory of evolution" inspired equality and progress as we now know it but history shows something else entirely. As the philosopher David Stove noted the reasons for this are fairly simple:
..it is perfectly obvious that accepting Darwin's theory of a universal struggle for life must tend to strengthen whatever tendencies people had beforehand to selfishness and domineering behavior towards their fellow humans. Hence it must tend to make them worse than they were before, and more likely to commit crimes: especially crimes of rapacity, or of cruelty, or of dominance for the sake of dominance. These considerations are exceedingly obvious. There was therefore never any excuse for the indignation and surprise with which Darwinians and neo-Darwinians have nearly always reacted whenever their theory is accused of being a morally subversive one. [E.g. "...a black propaganda campaign!" Etc.] For the same reason there is, and always was, every justification for the people, beginning with Darwin's contemporaries, who made that accusation against the theory. Darwin had done his best to separate the theory from the matrix of murderous ideas in which previously it had always been set. But in fact, since the theory says what it does, there is a limit, and a limit easily reached, to how much can be done in the way of such a separation. The Darwinian theory of evolution IS an incitement to crime: that is simply a fact. (Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution by David Stove :106-109)
mynym
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
new = knewJT
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
"Keep in mind this hasn’t actually been observed" Did you see [43]? He says that the author of Peter Rabbit new that a lichen originated from an endosymbiotic relationship of two organisms.JT
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
I have the feeling that Allen's hopes for "endosymbiosis" is unsupported. It's a bit of wishful thinking coupled with claims of "intermediate" links and a lack of actual physical, observable, in-motion evolution. Here's one description, if not the whole description, of endosymbiosis:
Endosymbiosis may be initiated when a phagotrophic protist engulfs an alga as prey. The protist fails, however, to digest the alga and thus accidentally retains it within the cell like a toothpick that cannot be swallowed,
and
This process of endosymbiosis requires genetic integration between the host and symbiont; vast amount of genes are transferred to the host nucleus, and protein transport machinery is established to transport products back into the plastid.
Keep in mind this hasn't actually been observed.Domoman
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
06:32 PM
6
06
32
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 66
Seversky, you are truly amazing. I warn you about going to anti-Catholic websites to obtain information about the Catholic Church, and the first thing you do is search out a “letter to the editor” authored by an anti-Catholic partisan as evidence of your position.
The letter was quoted simply as a handy listing of examples of support for slavery that are alleged against the Roman Catholic Church. I agree that, in itself, it is of little evidentiary value - much like lists of quotes from The Descent Of Man do not prove Darwin was a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan and Origins was a thinly-disguised justification for racism, eugenics and genocide.
I will simply provide enough information on one or two aspects and trust that the reader will understand your errors, which are many and multifaceted.
To save space, I have omitted what you wrote about Aquinas because I have no problem conceding its accuracy.
Please make a note of that.
Duly noted.
On the matter of papal teaching, the official pronouncements are equally consistent. Some popes were hypocrites as is the case for leaders in all institutions. That is why in 1488 Pope Innocent VIII violated his own Church’s teachings and accepted slaves. However, laxity must not be confused with doctrine. This same pope also fathered many children, but he did not retract the official doctrine that the clergy should be celibate. In similar fashion, his acceptance of a gift of slaves should not be confused with official Church teachings. These were enunciated often and explicitly as they became pertinent.
In other words, the all-too-human foibles and failings of some members of the Church's leadership are no reason to think that the Catholic Church was not otherwise solidly anti-slavery and do not in any way discredit the core message of Christianity. If I agree to that will you concede that the campaign to undermine Darwin's theory of evolution on the grounds of his alleged racism is both based on a logical fallacy and a black propaganda campaign unworthy of a place on a website that claims to be devoted to science?
All the official teachings of the Church are anti-slavery—all of them. Please make a note of that.
Of course, and, in this context, you and the other readers should also take note of the following passages taken from an English translation of the full text of the Bull Romanus Pontifex issued by Pope Nicholas V, January 8th, 1455:
We have lately heard, not without great joy and gratification, how our beloved son, the noble personage Henry, infante of Portugal,...has not ceased for twenty-five years past to send almost yearly an army of the peoples of the said kingdoms with the greatest labor, danger, and expense, in very swift ships called caravels, to explore the sea and coast lands toward the south and the Antarctic pole. And so it came to pass that when a number of ships of this kind had explored and taken possession of very many harbors, islands, and seas, they at length came to the province of Guinea, and having taken possession of some islands and harbors and the sea adjacent to that province, sailing farther they came to the mouth of a certain great river commonly supposed to be the Nile, and war was waged for some years against the peoples of those parts in the name of the said King Alfonso and of the infante, and in it very many islands in that neighborhood were subdued and peacefully possessed, as they are still possessed together with the adjacent sea. Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ...We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit...
Seversky
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Allen also claimed:["The theory of evolution"] has virtually nothing to do with racism, which is primarily an economic, political, and religious phenomenon. Yet:
...I would advance the even stronger claim that the theory of natural selection is, in essence, Adam Smith's economics transferred to nature. (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen J. Gould :122)
Think about it.mynym
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Going back to Allen's original claims:[The theory of evolution]...has provided a scientific basis for treating all people equally (since we are all genetically very similar due to our common ancestry)... Note that Allen has pointed out that the genetic focus of Darwinism may be incorrect before, yet apparently focuses on it when it apparently fits a mythology of natural/"scientific" Progress. But if genetic similarity serves as the scientific basis for equality then would the basis for our knowledge of human equality disappear if it was found to be incorrect? Also, how equal are chimps or daffodils? After all:
In the context of a 35% similarity to a daffodil, the 99.44% similarity of the DNA of human to chimp doesn't seem so remarkable. After all, humans are obviously a heck of a lot more similar to chimpanzees than to daffodils. More than that, to say that humans are over one-third daffodil is more ludicrous than profound. There are hardly any comparisons that you can make to a daffodil in which humans are 33% similar. DNA comparisons thus overestimate similarity at the low end of the scale (because 25% is actually the zero-mark of the DNA comparison) and underestimate comparisons at the high end. [...] Whether the actual number is less than %1 or 2% is obviously trivial in the great scheme of things. Our genes are very, very similar. But somehow "very, very similar" doesn't sound quite scientific enough. The invocation of a number with a decimal point, on the other hand, certainly does sound scientific. It implies that there is some officially calculated, scientifically sanctioned degree of similarity between the DNA of human and chimpanzee, when in fact there are simply a variety of crudely measured, but generally concordant, studies. (Emphasis added) (What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee by Johnathan Marks :28-29)
If we take Allen's argument seriously then what does it entail about the equality of chimps and humans? As Dawkins argues:
Many of our legal and ethical principles depend on the separation between Homo Sapiens and all other species. Of the people who regard abortion as a sin, including the minority who go to the lengths of assassinating doctors and blowing up abortion clinics, many are unthinking meat-eaters, and have no worries about chimpanzees being imprisoned in zoos and sacrificed in laboratories. Would they think again, if we could lay out a living continuum of intermediates between ourselves and chimpanzees, linked in an unbroken chain of interbreeders like the California salamanders? Surely they would. Yet it is the merest accident that the intermediates all happen to be dead. It is only because of this accident that we can comfortably and easily imagine a huge gulf between our two species-or between any two species, for that matter. (The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins :303)
It seems to me that both Allen and Dawkins are confusing a mythology of Progress with actual progress. Note the way that the Darwinian mind constantly works towards citing imaginary evidence, so by the end of the paragraph he’s treating his imaginary ancestors and imaginary events in the past as if they are a reality which must be “imagined” away by others. It bears repeating that he’s the one imagining things while what can actually be observed is a "huge gulf." Dawkins should know that if there were actual evidence for his imaginary ancestors it wouldn’t make a huge difference. Does genocide happen among humans? Of course. Do people who know that they have the same ancestors still kill each other? Of course. Would knowledge of a common ancestry for humans chimps be any safeguard for chimps? Of course not, Jews were experimented on by Nazis who firmly believed in Darwinism and the Nazis advanced anti-vivisection laws at the same time that they performed experiments on Jews. At any rate, the "theory" of evolution is more of a collection of mutable hypotheses than a theory, so if it serves as the basis for human equality then human equality becomes mutable. Public leaders stating in a public language that they were willing to impose on other people that "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." had much more to do with advancing human equality than the pseudo-science which has been typical to Darwinism historically.mynym
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Darwin, Descent of Man, page 296. "In an early chapter we have seen that the mental powers of the higher animals do not differ in kind, though so greatly in degree, from the corresponding powers of man, especially of the lower and barbarous races; and it would appear that even their taste for the beautiful is not widely different from that of the Quadrumana [ape]. As the negro of Africa raises the flesh on his face into parallel ridges "or cicatrices, high above the natural surface, which unsightly deformities, are considered great personal attractions;" mdash; as negroes, as well as savages in many parts of the world, paint their faces with red, blue, white, or black bars,—so the male mandrill [baboon] of Africa appears to have acquired his deeply-furrowed and gaudily-coloured face from having been thus rendered attractive to the female."Clive Hayden
February 16, 2009
February
02
Feb
16
16
2009
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply