Print
The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism
by Tony Campolo, Bill Clinton's pastoral counsellor
Reposted from:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/13930496.html
Tony Campolo is professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University and served as pastoral counselor to former President Clinton
Many who support the separation of church and state say that the intelligent design theory of creation ought not to be taught in public schools because it contains a religious bias. They dislike its suggestion that the evolutionary development of life was not the result of natural selection, as Charles Darwin suggested, but was somehow given purposeful direction and, by implication, was guided by God.
Arguing for what they believe is a nonprejudicial science, they contend that children in public schools should be taught Darwin's explanation of how the human race evolved, which they claim is value-free and depends solely on scientific evidence.
In terms of science, Darwin's account may be solid indeed. But value free? Nothing could be further from the truth - and that's where the problem lies.
Some creationists fear Darwin because his theories contradict their literal biblical belief that creation occurred in six 24-hour days. But they do not get at the real dangers of Darwinism. They do not realize that an explanation of the development of biological organisms over eons of time really does not pose the great threat to the dignity of our humanity that they suppose. Instead, they, along with the rest of us, should really fear the ethical implications of Darwin's original writings.
In reality, those writings express the prevalent racism of the 19th century and endorse an extreme laissez-faire political ideology that legitimizes the neglect of the suffering poor by the ruling elite.
Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him. If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist. Had they actually read Origin, they likely would be shocked to learn that among Darwin's scientifically based proposals was the elimination of "the negro and Australian peoples," which he considered savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilization.
In his next book, The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin ranked races in terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas. Then he went on to propose the extermination of races he "scientifically" defined as inferior. If this were not done, he claimed, those races, with much higher birthrates than "superior" races, would exhaust the resources needed for the survival of better people, eventually dragging down all civilization.
Darwin even argued that advanced societies should not waste time and money on caring for the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.
In case you think Darwin sounds like a Nazi, there is a connection. Darwin's ideas were complicit in the rise of Nazi ideas. Pulitzer Prize winner Marilynne Robinson, in her insightful essay on Darwin, points out that the German nationalist and anti-Semitic writer Heinrich von Treitschke and the biologist Ernst Haeckel also drew on Darwin's writings to justify racism, nationalism and harsh policies toward the poor and less privileged. Although these men's lives much predated Hitler's rise to power, their ideas were very influential as he developed the racist ideas that led to the Holocaust. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who belonged to the Nazi Office for Race Policy and whose work supported Nazi theories of "racial hygiene," made Darwin's theories the basis for his reasoning.
I hope our schoolchildren will be taught that it is up to science to study the processes that gave birth to the human race. But, as postmodern as it may be, I also want them to learn that whatever science discovers about our biological origins, there is, nevertheless, a mystical quality in human beings that makes each of us sacred and of infinite worth.
Regardless of how we got here, we should recognize that there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never recognized this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.
Tony Campolo is author of "Letters to a Young Evangelical."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/13930496.html
Tony Campolo is professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University and served as pastoral counselor to former President Clinton
Many who support the separation of church and state say that the intelligent design theory of creation ought not to be taught in public schools because it contains a religious bias. They dislike its suggestion that the evolutionary development of life was not the result of natural selection, as Charles Darwin suggested, but was somehow given purposeful direction and, by implication, was guided by God.
Arguing for what they believe is a nonprejudicial science, they contend that children in public schools should be taught Darwin's explanation of how the human race evolved, which they claim is value-free and depends solely on scientific evidence.
In terms of science, Darwin's account may be solid indeed. But value free? Nothing could be further from the truth - and that's where the problem lies.
Some creationists fear Darwin because his theories contradict their literal biblical belief that creation occurred in six 24-hour days. But they do not get at the real dangers of Darwinism. They do not realize that an explanation of the development of biological organisms over eons of time really does not pose the great threat to the dignity of our humanity that they suppose. Instead, they, along with the rest of us, should really fear the ethical implications of Darwin's original writings.
In reality, those writings express the prevalent racism of the 19th century and endorse an extreme laissez-faire political ideology that legitimizes the neglect of the suffering poor by the ruling elite.
Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him. If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist. Had they actually read Origin, they likely would be shocked to learn that among Darwin's scientifically based proposals was the elimination of "the negro and Australian peoples," which he considered savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilization.
In his next book, The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin ranked races in terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas. Then he went on to propose the extermination of races he "scientifically" defined as inferior. If this were not done, he claimed, those races, with much higher birthrates than "superior" races, would exhaust the resources needed for the survival of better people, eventually dragging down all civilization.
Darwin even argued that advanced societies should not waste time and money on caring for the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.
In case you think Darwin sounds like a Nazi, there is a connection. Darwin's ideas were complicit in the rise of Nazi ideas. Pulitzer Prize winner Marilynne Robinson, in her insightful essay on Darwin, points out that the German nationalist and anti-Semitic writer Heinrich von Treitschke and the biologist Ernst Haeckel also drew on Darwin's writings to justify racism, nationalism and harsh policies toward the poor and less privileged. Although these men's lives much predated Hitler's rise to power, their ideas were very influential as he developed the racist ideas that led to the Holocaust. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who belonged to the Nazi Office for Race Policy and whose work supported Nazi theories of "racial hygiene," made Darwin's theories the basis for his reasoning.
I hope our schoolchildren will be taught that it is up to science to study the processes that gave birth to the human race. But, as postmodern as it may be, I also want them to learn that whatever science discovers about our biological origins, there is, nevertheless, a mystical quality in human beings that makes each of us sacred and of infinite worth.
Regardless of how we got here, we should recognize that there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never recognized this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.
Tony Campolo is author of "Letters to a Young Evangelical."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 291 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #115146 by Arcturus on January 23, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Well, the Catholic Church drew from the Bible and burned and destroyed so many lives through the Inquisition. Why the hell do we still have Catholics around reading from the Bible, surely this book is very dangerous !!!Weren't those people sacred and of infinite worth???
Other Comments by Arcturus
3. Comment #115147 by MPhil on January 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Even if all that is said of Darwin's opinions in this article were true - I don't know, but I guess Prof. Dawkins will be eager to respond - that does not change the fact that he discovered a scientific principle that is, like all empirical science, completely unconnected with prescriptive ethics. Maybe Darwin was a racist, maybe he wasn't. It doesn't matter. Why does this person who is supposedly intelligent commit this obvious fallacy of equating the scientific theory of evolution (and the corresponding facts of evolution) with Darwin's personal opinion.
Yes, the idea of animal ancestry of humans (and yes, I am aware that humans are animals, too... I think you know what I'm getting at) can strengthen the belief of some people in "higher" or "nobler" and more "primitive" races among humankind... but this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Even if it were true that black people were genetically slightly closer to the other great apes than Europeans - can you imaging some racist saying "Yes! They share 0.001 % more genetic material with those lowly primates than us - this completely justifies our regarding them as beings so low that they should be eradicated!"
Aside from the fact that Darwin couldn't have known of genetics, but only of physiognomy to determine the relationship....What utter, utter nonsense!
Oh, and of course "God's chosen country" and "God's chosen people" isn't nationalist and racist at all *cough*.
Tony Camplono wants children to learn that there is "a mystical quality in human beings that makes each of us sacred and of infinite worth."
...can't you hear them? "I have more mystical quality than you! "Christians are more in touch with their mystical quality than you heathens!"
So, Camplono wants them to learn wild, absolutely baseless metaphysical speculation that would offend every philosopher and sceptic in its arbitrariness alongside scientific fact.
Give me a break! Seriously, the nerve some people have!
Other Comments by MPhil
4. Comment #115150 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Darwin was not advocating genocide. Merely predicting ways in which "more fit" varieties within a species would displace other varieties.But yes Darwinism has within it the potential to create toxic racist cults based on pseudoscience, when devoid of objectivity and intellectual honesty.
However keep in mind that teaching nuclear physics has within it the potential to create mad scientists who will develop a bomb to destroy the world as we know it. Yet no one is using that excuse to prevent the teaching of good physics.
I would like to hear Richard Dawkins comment on this article.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
5. Comment #115151 by Steve Zara on January 23, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who belonged to the Nazi Office for Race Policy and whose work supported Nazi theories of "racial hygiene," made Darwin's theories the basis for his reasoning.
From Wikipedia, about Lorenz:
When accepting the Nobel Prize, he apologized for a 1940 publication that included Nazi views of science, saying that "many highly decent scientists hoped, like I did, for a short time for good from National Socialism, and many quickly turned away from it with the same horror as I."
Regardless of how we got here, we should recognize that there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never recognized this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.
So humans are infinitely better than apes. What arrogant nonsense. I would far rather call a chimpanzee or orang-utan cousin than this fellow.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
6. Comment #115152 by mandrellian on January 23, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I almost gave up after reading the title of the article. After reading the whole thing I realised my first instinct was right.Deluded, dangerous idiots have for centuries used other peoples' thoughts, usually completely out of context, to justify every kind of injustice and horror imaginable (generally they've used religious myth to do it). This does not mean the original author had the same evil intent as his later parrots and this article is merely yet another transparent, straw-clutching attempt to cloud the real issues and slight Darwin's work by casting aspersions on his character and motivations. It's the classic desperation attack: when in doubt, call anyone who disagrees with you a frickin Nazi.
Other Comments by mandrellian
7. Comment #115154 by Diacanu on January 23, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I got to the sixth paragraph and stopped.Is it worth trudging forward, or is it the same old bullshit?
Other Comments by Diacanu
8. Comment #115156 by Mitchell Gilks on January 23, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Just one big long ad hominem attack. I would not be surpized if it were all true of Darwin. Racism was by no means unique at that time, even the most liberal and progressives of the day were incredibily racist by today's standards. That in no way invalidates any ideas forwarded by the man.It is logically fallacious to say that someone's argument is worthless because they were a racist.
Also, I think it is quite the opposite. For a good needed humbling we need to recognize that we are just another animal. Also to elevate other living things up in the eyes of these egoists. So they don't just kill and kill and kill without a flinch. It is a lot harder to do knowing that you are killing cousins.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
9. Comment #115157 by Corylus on January 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Professor Campolo supplies remarkably few quotes to back up his assessment of Darwin's views. In fact, none.
I always feel ashamed of myself when I haven't read the books quoted in articles, but I only have so much time. (E.g. I always meant to read Origin of Species, but I had it down as superseeded by more recent research).
Can anyone shed any light on these peculiar assertions?
Other Comments by Corylus
10. Comment #115159 by MPhil on January 23, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Regardless of how we got here, we should recognize that there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never recognized this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.
Wow, didn't even read that one, I was so enraged.
Well, you know me - I'd say complex grammatical language and multi-meta-level thought as well as the things we have because of that - like highly complex artifacts for "outsourcing" the contents of our mind do show that there is a qualitative difference of some sort... but it is certainly not infinite, and it is certainly not supernatural, mystical or whatever in nature. Apes are just bodies with highly developed nervous systems - we are just bodies with highly developed nervous systems. Ours is just capable of meta-level conscious activity and more systematic, linguaformal activity... S O W H A T
Yes, I think the increased cognitive capacity, resulting in more articulate emotions (think of psychological torture) entitles us to consider the well-being of a human more important than the well-being of an insect... but this has nothing to do with "being better", least of all infinitely better.
We're all made of the same stuff, there is no magical ingredient in humans that isn't there in apes.
Steve, you're absolutely right: What astoundingly arrogant nonsense!
Other Comments by MPhil
11. Comment #115160 by Opisthokont on January 23, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Right, and Hitler's religiously-inspired views of the Jews had nothing at all to do with anything.On the other hand, Hitler's whole political platform was based on the superiority of everything German -- culture as well as race. Based on that, we should also ban the music of Richard Wagner and the writings of Goethe. The Brothers Grimm were highly concerned about preserving the German culture (that was their primary motivation for compiling their collections of fairy tales) -- should their other main pursuit, linguistics, be denied us as well? I suppose if we just pretend that Germany did not exist at all, we would be that much better off.
Meanwhile, this fellow criticises people for not referring to Darwin's most famous book by its full title, while apparently either ignorant or suppressive of the contemporary meaning of the term "race". I suspect that he has not actually read Darwin himself, either -- or if he has, he has done so only with the intent to twist the meaning of every sentence that he can into condemnation, regardless of context or intent.
The misrepresentation (not to mention the fallacious appeal to consequenses) is painful. But, I must add, snark is a lot of fun, and I suppose that I should be happy for people like this that I can have a chance to practice the latter.
Other Comments by Opisthokont
12. Comment #115161 by QuickEye on January 23, 2008 at 5:22 pm
This would be the case if Darwin's books (or any scientific work, for that matter) would be unchangeable, "carved in stone" as the Bible. In that case the author might have a point.But that is not how science works, and that is the beauty of it. Scientific theories develop or get discarded as time goes by. The advances made in other fields of science influence even the theory of evolution, and claims made in the name of Darwinism necessarily have to comply with the science of TODAY, not of Darwin's own time. So if Darwin made statements that were disproved later, those statements can not be part of today's Darwinism. Scientific thinking not just allows this development, but it is the essence of it, as far as I can judge.
This might be a tough concept to "swallow" for people who are used to the idea of the unquestionable authority of a book...
Other Comments by QuickEye
13. Comment #115164 by ianmkz on January 23, 2008 at 5:26 pm
we should recognize that there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being.Ah... you lost me there. In fact, given the relative sizes of the populations, I suspect the great apes may have a higher individual value.
Other Comments by ianmkz
14. Comment #115165 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Now in case some of you may be wondering whether it was a coincidence that Western societies where and have remained technologically and scientifically the most progressive society in the world. And in case some of you maybe thinking whether there is something special in the genes that can explain that. Well there is not. Dr. James D. Watson, who should have known better, made a remark to that extent and was rightly reprimanded.But by far the most rational explanation so far has been proposed by Jared Diamond in his book Guns, Germs and Steel along with a PBS documentary by the same name. I found it very enlightening:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4008293090480628280
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6846344734969027300
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3449100874735282191
Other Comments by 82abhilash
15. Comment #115166 by Corylus on January 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Ok, I was cross when I first read this and didn't pick up this one.Some creationists fear Darwin because his theories contradict their literal biblical belief that creation occurred in six 24-hour days. But they do not get at the real dangers of Darwinism. They do not realize that an explanation of the development of biological organisms over eons of time really does not pose the great threat to the dignity of our humanity that they suppose. Instead, they, along with the rest of us, should really fear the ethical implications of Darwin's original writings.The man is trying to portray himself as both smarter than the creationists and morally superior to both them and evolutionists.
I smell an agenda. Is he after a new political job?
Other Comments by Corylus
16. Comment #115167 by MPhil on January 23, 2008 at 5:31 pm
OpisthokontHitler platform wasn't based on the superiority of everything German, but everything "Arian". So add all culture of the "nordic peoples" as well.
Yes, German culture is wonderful (or so I happen to think, but I love all great cultural artifacts I have the linguistic ability to aprpeciate, regardless of something as arbitrary as nationality)- Goethe, Schiller, Novalis, Lessing, Eichendorff, Brecht, Hesse, Mann, Borchert, Benn, Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Schubert, Haydn, Händel to name only very few.. and to preserve it is an admirable, worthy cause. But to denigrate and dismiss everything else on the basis that it is not "Arian"? How silly is that? Not very much more silly than thinking that "recognising" the "mystical quality" in humans is essential to being moral.
Other Comments by MPhil
17. Comment #115170 by 82abhilash on January 23, 2008 at 5:33 pm
MPhil Hitler was Austrian by the way, not German. Just FYI.Other Comments by 82abhilash
18. Comment #115172 by Diacanu on January 23, 2008 at 5:34 pm
These shitty little articles, and shitty little books from the apologist crowd are just going to get weaselier, and nastier aren't they?Good.
They'll shoot themselves in the foot.
Let 'em.
Let them blow a big stink cloud in the air that everyone can smell, especially their flock.
Other Comments by Diacanu
19. Comment #115173 by Ian Bamlett on January 23, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I'm sorry but you have all thus far missed the most amazing revelation in this article.Clinton had a pastoral counselor!
Wow.
Other Comments by Ian Bamlett
20. Comment #115174 by Gymnopedie on January 23, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Wow. All that because the author doesn't understand what the word "race" meant in Darwin's writings.Other Comments by Gymnopedie
21. Comment #115175 by MPhil on January 23, 2008 at 5:39 pm
82abhilashBeing German, and having had the good fortune to receive a rather good and thorough education, I was actually aware of the fact that Hitler was born in Braunau, Austria. But of course, with the Nazi craze (and Austria joining up willingly - far more willingly than they care to admit) Austria was considered to be part of Germany, and later "annexed" (willingly) into the Reich.
Other Comments by MPhil
22. Comment #115176 by devolve on January 23, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Even if Darwin had been a frothing, racist, eugenics advocate (he wasn't), it has no bearing on evolution theory. IF that had been the case, it wouldn't make "Darwin's theories" dangerous any more than gravitation theory would be made "dangerous" if Newton, Einstein, Hawking, and my dog all advocated skydiving without a parachute.I wonder if Campolo would similarly claim that Christianity is also a "dangerous idea" because the Church was a profoundly bloodthirsty institution (certainly moreso than Darwin ever aspired to be, racist or not) in centuries past?
Other Comments by devolve
23. Comment #115177 by BAEOZ on January 23, 2008 at 5:53 pm
When Darwin referred to race, he didn't mean it in the sense we now use it. It was synonymous with species back then. Other Comments by BAEOZ
24. Comment #115179 by Radesq on January 23, 2008 at 5:56 pm
...Darwin's scientifically based proposals was the elimination of "the negro and Australian peoples...
I'll admit that I have not read the origin of species. So upon reading this I did a search of an online copy of the book looking at every instance of Australia, Negro and savage and I found nothing that could fairly be considered to approach justifying the above statement. If Darwin was a man of his age (and a racist age it was)perhaps he can be fairly criticized for it. That is not what this ass has done. He has provided no evidence that I can discern for his slanderous assertions.
Other Comments by Radesq
25. Comment #115180 by theantitheist on January 23, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Those of you asking for Richard to comment on the article, i would ask why?It's a waste of anyone's time to try to refute any of the 'arguements'. It's complete bollocks from start to finish, rather then give it to Richard give it to a class of primary school kids and ask them to run through it and make arguements for or against it. Unless it was a faith school, i'm sure even they could rip it apart (given a good teacher).
Other Comments by theantitheist
26. Comment #115181 by Glen Davidson on January 23, 2008 at 6:02 pm
The man is such a bozo. Take this part:Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him.
Who has ever said that Darwin should be taught in public schools? It's like this idiot simply read the dishonest propaganda of the Discovery Institute, and decided that we who accept science indeed have a holy writ called "Origin," and we wish it to be taught.
Have a clue, ridiculous man, we don't want to "teach Darwin," we want to teach science, which has moved far past Darwin.
If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist.
And this is a particularly vapid and ignorant twisting of what the title actually related (btw, it is said to have not been Darwin's original title, rather one suggested by the publisher). It is well-known by those who are qualified to opine in this matter, that "races" there referred to "varieties," and the "Origin" did not discuss human "races". Campolo is taking an especially bad interpretation by the creationists (by the way, the Expelled trailer highlights the subtitle as well, undoubtedly trying to dishonestly make use of the changing meaning of "race" from that time to this time), and trying to make a case against Darwin based on that tendentious and incorrect interpretation.
I am not unaware that Darwin had racist notions, which showed up in some of his work. I do doubt most of Campolo's specific charges, however, primarily because of how dishonestly (I don't care that he probably ignorantly believes what he writes, he is obliged to know better when he writes in a major publication) he deals with the title as well as his wholly incorrect sense of what this controversy is about. We're not in the least trying to teach the writings of Darwin, or even "Darwinism" (in America we typically don't call MET "Darwinism", though it is more common in the UK to do so), we're wishing to teach an evolved theory which has left behind most of Darwin's Victorian prejudices, along with the fairly embryonic state of evolutionary theory in Darwin's time.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Other Comments by Glen Davidson
27. Comment #115183 by babrock on January 23, 2008 at 6:11 pm
MPil waxing about his love of German culture reminds me of something I always like to say;That us Dutch people are obviosly supirior to the rest of you cretins because of our world reknown tolerence- not to mention great speling abilities.Also I too am curios to hear Dawkins take on this .I know he has said how one should not judge someone from the past by todays standards (Maybe it apeared at the time like those races realy were inferior) Still it must be tuff to have a hero of yours say that.Other Comments by babrock
28. Comment #115184 by LorienRyan on January 23, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Isn't this just the 'you can't have morals without God' arguement re-packaged? Other Comments by LorienRyan
29. Comment #115185 by Goldy on January 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm
MPhil Hitler was Austrian by the way, not German. Just FYI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Germanism
An arbitary line in the same (or mountains, in this case) doesn't mean much...
Other Comments by Goldy
30. Comment #115187 by al-rawandi on January 23, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Goldy,Hitler considered himself from the Ost Mark, or Sud Mark. He thought it was all German.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
31. Comment #115188 by Goldy on January 23, 2008 at 6:18 pm
That us Dutch people are obviosly supirior to the rest of you cretins because of our world reknown tolerence- not to mention great speling abilities
Aaah, but the English ability to be able to talk and present complex ideas while keeping his hands in his pockets obviously makes us top of the pile! ;-) And our conquering a fiendish spelling system AND not having the need to learn other languages...I could go on :-D
Other Comments by Goldy
32. Comment #115189 by MPhil on January 23, 2008 at 6:19 pm
babrockAm I getting something wrong, or are saying that I was being intolerant and acting superior?
What's intolerant or arrogant about saying that I love the works of these composers, writers and philosophers and that I'm also very fond of the works of other artists from other cultures?
I really hope I misunderstood you there, because if I didn't, then your comment was frankly insulting.
Other Comments by MPhil
33. Comment #115190 by al-rawandi on January 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Hey,I read Mein Kampf, I don't recall Hitler discussing evolution.
Did he ever say he accepted evolution? Did he ever speak with admiration of Darwin, Huxley or any other early evolutionary theorist?
There is an assumption because some feel he was not religious, that he therefore accpeted evolution as understood by Darwin. We are letting too many people get away with that assumption.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
34. Comment #115191 by AmericanGodless on January 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Arguing for what they believe is a nonprejudicial science, they contend that children in public schools should be taught Darwin's explanation of how the human race evolved, which they claim is value-free and depends solely on scientific evidence.
No, it is not value-free; it carries with it the ethical values of science -- first and foremost, truth-telling. As Jacob Bronowski put it, "We ought to act in such a way that what IS true can be verified to be so." (Though I would prefer a wording less colored by mid-20th century logical positivism: that "what IS true can be shown very likely to be so".)
In reality, those writings express the prevalent racism of the 19th century and endorse an extreme laissez-faire political ideology that legitimizes the neglect of the suffering poor by the ruling elite.
And the prevalent values of the first century legitimized the ownership of slaves, the subjugation of women, and the execution of homosexuals. We've come a long way, haven't we?
[T]here is, nevertheless, a mystical quality in human beings that makes each of us sacred and of infinite worth... there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being....
So I guess the point of the article is that we can best equip schoolchildren to build a more civilized set of values for the 21st century by teaching them that they have mystical qualities that make them infinitely different from all other life on earth? Perhaps (as I think Darwin and most scientists would recommend) we ought to just tell them the truth (as well as we can know it), encourage them to do the same, and then let them come to their own moral and ethical conclusions.
Other Comments by AmericanGodless
35. Comment #115192 by Goldy on January 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Al-rawandi, I know. The duchy of Bavaria extended down the Inn a bit further than it does today. That might have made Branau "German" if one uses national boundaries. Sud Tirol is Italian but speaks German (though more and more Italian speakers seem to be popping up) because of a rolled out map and a pen...As I said, they are but arbitary lines, quickly changed.
Other Comments by Goldy
36. Comment #115193 by Chris Bell on January 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Those of you asking for Richard to comment on the article, i would ask why?
I think because Richard's copy of The Origin of Species is more dog-eared than mine. (In fact, I only own the Selfish Gene, and not the original Origin.) There were a lot of factual claims by this author that an expert will confirm/refute quickly.
But as others have noted, it matters not a lick. It's like denying a new theory just because a scientologist came up with it.
Other Comments by Chris Bell
37. Comment #115194 by al-rawandi on January 23, 2008 at 6:23 pm
MPhil,Bratwurst... Bratwurst man. No thanks.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
38. Comment #115195 by Jenin on January 23, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Although I should no longer be surprised at religious people's inability to be logical, I cannot believe how facetious this argument is. Whether or not Darwin wrote racist things (I myself don't know, although I have read Origin and can recall no such remarks) has nothing to do with the validity of his theory. Furthermore, even if the theory of evolution did somehow promote racism (which I don't think it does) this has nothing to do with its truth value.Other Comments by Jenin
39. Comment #115197 by MPhil on January 23, 2008 at 6:28 pm
al-rawandiNo, I don't recall Hitler accepting evolution, either. But he certainly wasn't opposed to the general idea.
His "Rassenlehre" was based on alleged physiognomical differences and similarities between peoples and their alleged significance concerning traits of character.
And, Godly - Braunau was Austrian since 1779.
_______________________________
EDIT: and, while I enjoy the occasional Bratwurst with mustard in buns now and then - it's certainly not my favorite food. And in no way related to the works of the mentioned artists and philosophers, of course;... although, the influence of Bratwurst on Nietzschean Philosophy would certainly be an interesting topic of scientific investigation :)
Other Comments by MPhil
40. Comment #115198 by Diacanu on January 23, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Jenin-Furthermore, even if the theory of evolution did somehow promote racism (which I don't think it does) this has nothing to do with its truth value.
This goes to something I've repeatedly observed in theists.
They really do think you can just pick reality like a TV channel.
That if indeed, Darwinism equaled racism, and was true, the unpleasantness of that truth would justify living in a pleasant fiction, even KNOWING that's what you were doing.
Course, even if Darwinism did point to racist claims were true, there are countless philosophical/moral reasons not to give in to the hate and abuse aspects of racism without needing recourse to outright delusion.
Other Comments by Diacanu
41. Comment #115199 by Electric Monk on January 23, 2008 at 6:32 pm
I have read The Origen of Species (havn't got to Descent yet though) and i can't remember any suggestion that Darwin proposed "the elimination of "the negro and Australian peoples" (interesting how little he quotes) - I've just had a quick look for Darwin quotes from the web:"This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them."
"I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."
"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races."
(All from The Descent of Man)
In fact Darwin was well known for being opposed to slavery long before the mainstream churches - This article is a gross misrepresentation of Darwin's views!
Other Comments by Electric Monk
42. Comment #115200 by Sittingduck on January 23, 2008 at 6:32 pm
"Had they actually read Origin, they likely would be shocked to learn that among Darwin's scientifically based proposals was the elimination of "the negro and Australian peoples," which he considered savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilization."It's obvious Campolo never read "Orgin" either.
This guy is such a hoser...
Recently I started re-reading "Origin" - it's been over 30 years since the last read. I can't seem to find anything racist in regards to humans - except that the species kept and raised by "savages" differed from those in "civilized" societies.
Anybody interested - the following link from the American Mueseum of Natural History is a great resource:
http://darwinlibrary.amnh.org/index.php?globalnav=manuscripts§ionnav=list
Other Comments by Sittingduck
43. Comment #115201 by MPhil on January 23, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Oh, and I forgot to mention... Hitler sent huge teams of scientists to the farthest corners of the world to measure and record the physiological features of the people living there (in order to get more data on which to impose the horrible ideas of his "Rassenlehre"). The most thorough and well documented research on that topic to that date... and even now, those recordings are immensely valuable to science. Other Comments by MPhil
44. Comment #115205 by Goldy on January 23, 2008 at 6:44 pm
And, Godly - Braunau was Austrian since 1779
But not before, eh? Ach, a few decades out ;-) Anyway, I think you know what I was trying to say.
As it is, those who think Darwin's (and Wallace's) theory of evolution can lead to racism, to me, suggests they are not 100% sure what the theory is about. Much like those that invoke a god when trying to justify a rather mundane man-made idea....
Other Comments by Goldy
45. Comment #115208 by annabanana on January 23, 2008 at 6:47 pm
First and foremost, even if Darwin did have those ideas, he still was one of the first to recognize the process of evolution (as others have said) and that's what we learn about, not his personal opinions. This guy is such an asshole. He thinks he can win everyone over by simply saying "well Darwin was a racist so we musn't teach his works".Secondly, saying that Darwin's discovery of evolution caused the Holocaust is like saying that Newton's discovery of gravity caused people to drop bombs on one another.
Other Comments by annabanana
46. Comment #115209 by Damien White on January 23, 2008 at 6:47 pm
This article is nothing but twaddle.I challenge the author to read "King Solomon's Ring" by Konrad Lorenz. If he did, i'm sure he'd find that Lorenz was quite clearly Germany's answer to James Herriot.
Other Comments by Damien White
47. Comment #115210 by troyreynolds86 on January 23, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Nothing is more damning to racism than a good understanding of evolution! What a moron. Any adaptation to the environment (color of skin) of any race matters precisely zero considering that there is a greater genetic variation within a race than between them. One could not proclaim, once one has a clue about what evolution says (which is not necessarily what Darwin says, since the theory has had a century and a half to be further developed and is far more complete than he left it), than any living organism is any more evolved than any other. Each are exactly what their environments require.Also, if we are going to bash, presuming that Darwin held such beliefs about other races, Victorian thinkers for engaging in Victorian prejudices then maybe we should ban from the hands of students the writings of Abraham Lincoln. He, "the great emancipator", demonstrated some particularly vile views on other races.
Other Comments by troyreynolds86
48. Comment #115211 by Electric Monk on January 23, 2008 at 6:49 pm
For a review of this crap go to:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/was_darwin_a_racist.php
Other Comments by Electric Monk
49. Comment #115213 by GSP on January 23, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Allow me to play the devil's advocate:We hear from Sam Harris, et al., that we must "take religion at its word," so to speak. The bible has value judgments which today we find unacceptable (stoning, slavery, etc.). So we take what we need from the bible (the good stuff) and leave out the bad (those specific value judgments). But the "New Atheists" say if you are going to take some, you have to take all.
So, why can't I as a (jesusfuck it hurts to say this) Christian demand the same from "Darwinists?" If you are going to take the theory from the person who developed it, why should I not force you take take all his ideas? Why are you allowed to cherry-pick and I am not?
Other Comments by GSP
50. Comment #115216 by Goldy on January 23, 2008 at 6:53 pm
GSP, I don't think the Origin of Species says anything about some people being better than others in that racist sense...Cherry pick all one likes, it isn't, as far as I'm aware, there.
James Watson, on the other hand...
Other Comments by Goldy
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"I want science to be taken seriously, because, after all, it's less ephemeral--it has a more eternal aspect than whatever the politics of the day might be, which, of course, gets the lead in the news."
Richard Dawkins
"Who needs Satan when you have a God like this?"
Robert M. Price
"If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease!"
Clark Adams
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Seneca the Younger
"Religions do make claims about the universe--the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false."
Richard Dawkins
Other Recommended Reading
Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters
Donald R. Prothero
Richard Dawkins
Alan Grafen, Mark Ridley
God Is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
Read the 1st Chapter!
Creationism's Trojan Horse
Barbara Forrest, Paul R. Gross
Pale Blue Dot
Carl Sagan
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #115143 by Dax on January 23, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Funny, especially considering that Darwin was dismayed by the treatment of slaves in South America. Was Darwin making things up or is Campolo making things up?Other Comments by Dax