Wednesday, January 23, 2008 | Science : Teaching Science | print version

Print | Comments |

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."

Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 151 - 200 of 289 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

151. Comment #115401 by Jonathan Dore on January 24, 2008 at 6:46 am

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,"

This sounded suspicious to me, so I've just done a full text search of all six editions of Origin of Species (which anyone can do at http://darwin-online.org.uk/). The phrase "the negro and Australian peoples" does not appear anywhere in any of them. So I searched for all the occurrences of "negro/es" and "Australia/n" separately�a handful of occurrences, none of which are remotely connected to anything like the meaning or sentiment Tony Campolo puts in Darwin's mouth. Nothing to report under "dark" or "black" either.

For a fuller discussion of what's gone on here, see http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/95e84795b4de9560.

So it looks like Tony Campolo is a shameless liar, on two counts:

1) He hasn't read Origin either, while implying that he had.
2) He deliberately misrepresents Darwin's prediction, in The Descent of Man, as a "proposal".

Sad to see Clinton, who I always rated as rather intelligent, should associate with such a man.
Sad also to see that philly.com, where this garbage comes from, doesn't allow comments on their site.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

152. Comment #115403 by al-rawandi on January 24, 2008 at 6:49 am

peacebeuponnme,

Indeed. I like Jared Diamond's explanation better. Mega fauna seem to be more definitely linked to human development than people realize. As is true with the Flora.

I was just poking around on the racial issue, trying to stir something up. People seem scared shitless by it.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

153. Comment #115404 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 6:49 am

Comment #115387 by Henri Bergson

What if Darwin, Galton, Spencer, et al were right about the hierarchy of human races? Of course it is a value judgement, but so is one which states that humans are superior to apes (in terms of intellect).

First define what you mean by intellect, then you can do your critical experiment to test it.

Other Comments by epeeist

154. Comment #115405 by Tyler Durden on January 24, 2008 at 6:53 am

I've used their feedback page: http://www.philly.com/philly/about/feedback/ to enquire as to where Campolo sourced his Darwin quotes from, specifically with regard to his use of:

"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,"

in order to defame Darwin.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

155. Comment #115406 by al-rawandi on January 24, 2008 at 6:55 am

epeeist,

What about learning abilities. Linguistic abilities. Quant abilities. Logical reasoning abilities.

If we tested those, would that satisfy you in terms of a definition?

(Devil's advocate proceeds below)

I think one may find marked differences between some races, and some specific areas of the planet.

Can you tell me you believe that a child born in England and kept in an intellectual vacuum and tested would not score better than an African child given the same treatment. Both children receive the same education and resources?

(I happen to think it would be a toss up probably but I want to hear some other theories).

Other Comments by al-rawandi

156. Comment #115407 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 6:55 am

Zara,

I advise you to control your emotions, they betray you.

You write, 'Some groups of people are superior to others in terms of muscle strength, resistance to disease and so on. We talk about that openly.'

- But you insist then that intellectual superiorities cannot exist between racial groups taken as a mean average?

Tell me, is there a scientific law which states that all human races MUST have equal average intelligence?

Moreover, I would suggest that belief in equality in the west is a fundamental Christian ethic ("all men are equal under the eyes of God") which was created by Jewish slaves in order to gain power over their Roman masters. I.e. no god = no equality. Equality, like God, cannot be proven.

Of course, this view is too radical for most people today.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

157. Comment #115408 by Steinsky on January 24, 2008 at 6:56 am

*Yawn*

What is it with the constant recycling of the same old?

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_is_racist
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_himself_was_racist

Other Comments by Steinsky

158. Comment #115409 by al-rawandi on January 24, 2008 at 6:57 am

Tyler,

I have Darwin's biography at home. I am going home to read up tonight.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

159. Comment #115411 by al-rawandi on January 24, 2008 at 7:01 am

Yeah Steve,

control those emotions, like scooternyc does.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

160. Comment #115413 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 7:02 am

I was just poking around on the racial issue, trying to stir something up. People seem scared shitless by it.

I think we need to approach this issue sensibly. No question that scientific enquiry should be hindered by politics, or that we should only accept "nice" theories. However, we should be sensitive.People should rightly be worried about presenting theories about race - because of the harm that racism causes. Therefore they need to proceed with extra caution.

We are emotional humans. Scientific enquiry cannot just proceed robotically and scientists express surprise with, or dismiss, emotional reactions.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

161. Comment #115414 by AnthSynthasome on January 24, 2008 at 7:06 am

YUCK.

Other Comments by AnthSynthasome

162. Comment #115415 by irate_atheist on January 24, 2008 at 7:06 am

160. Comment #115407 by Henri Bergson -

"Equality is a fundamental Christian ethic"

Hmmm. Do you mean, like, women have equal rights as a direct result of Christianity too? Ooh, no, strike out the Catholic Church then.

Or perhaps abolition of slavery? Ah, well, Colossians 3:22 - Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Oops!

I could go on, but I really can't be bothered.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

163. Comment #115417 by Tosser on January 24, 2008 at 7:07 am

Since the Origin of Species was published in 1859, legalized slavery in America was abolished and segregation was ended. So on a cause-and-effect level, accepting the fact of evolution appears safe.

Campolo makes the mistake that so many do: thinking that studying evolution is equivalent to studying Darwin's complete belief system, as if Darwin were some sort of secular diety, and Darwinism was a religion practiced by "Darwinists." (Note that people are never referred to as "heliocentrists.")

Securalism frees us to use modern understanding to dismiss and condemn any beliefs that Darwin held. We can maintain a respect for his enormous contribution to science even as we fault the man himself. We do the same in respecting the accomplishments of the other famous man born on February 12, 1809, even as we condemn the many racist sentiments that Lincoln expressed.

Other Comments by Tosser

164. Comment #115419 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 7:08 am

irate_atheist

Well, Henri is confusing equality generally with equality of intellect.

Women are clearly weaker on average than men, for example. That makes them no less "equal", generally.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

165. Comment #115420 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 7:13 am

Comment #115406 by al-rawandi on

What about learning abilities. Linguistic abilities. Quant abilities. Logical reasoning abilities.

Sounds a reasonable start

Can you tell me you believe that a child born in England and kept in an intellectual vacuum and tested would not score better than an African child given the same treatment. Both children receive the same education and resources?

An here you have the beginnings of a designed experiment.

I don't really know what "intelligence" or "intellect" are. I can see some manifestations including those that you give in the list above. But as you intimate, these may be tied to education and culture. And is the "intellect" required to produce a theory of relativity better than one that is used to create an opus 131 string quartet or an "Also Sprach Zarathustra"?

Other Comments by epeeist

166. Comment #115422 by al-rawandi on January 24, 2008 at 7:20 am

epeeist,

Based on personal experience with various peoples, I find most people are more or less the same, without any racial characteristics that are discernable and common to all among a certain race.

My guess is that a study would support my observations. But I do not have the skills or time to do the study.

I remember the "Bell Curve". An excellent collection of data, and really shit inferences from that data.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

167. Comment #115424 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 7:21 am

irate-'atheist',

2 simple points:

- The Reformation against the Catholic Church occurred as people (like Martin Luther) realised that Catholicism did not follow the teachings of the bible. Thus we get women clergy in the protestant churches.

- You can find a justification for any view in the bible (for example, not eating shell fish). But treating people equally and with compassion was fundamental to a predominant character in the Bible known as 'Jesus Christ' � you should look him up.

So, you shouldn't bother, you're right.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

168. Comment #115425 by Warwick Allison on January 24, 2008 at 7:22 am

The article is just a boring strawman - the issue is not whether to teach "Darwin" in schools, but rather "Evolution".

Reading Origin of Species today is more useful as an historical window than an education of the theory of evolution. Personally, I found the accounts of the treatment of animals rather brutal (but expected of the period).

Kind of like reading Asimov, where the "future" is half-full of 1950's housewives.

Other Comments by Warwick Allison

169. Comment #115427 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 7:25 am

God, I sounded like a Christian in that last response, forgive me Lord!

epeeist,
like the subtlety there. You're really gay about your science.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

170. Comment #115430 by PJG on January 24, 2008 at 7:37 am

Peacebeuponme

irate_atheist

Well, Henri is confusing equality generally with equality of intellect.

Women are clearly weaker on average than men, for example. That makes them no less "equal", generally.

I agree that being "weaker" makes women no less equal. However, "weaker" in what way? Muscular strength, maybe, but I seem to remember work done on pain thresholds which put women way above men (on account of them having to deal with childbirth I suspect) Maybe this makes it swings and roundabouts? ;o)

Other Comments by PJG

171. Comment #115431 by Steve Zara on January 24, 2008 at 7:37 am

You write, 'Some groups of people are superior to others in terms of muscle strength, resistance to disease and so on. We talk about that openly.'

- But you insist then that intellectual superiorities cannot exist between racial groups taken as a mean average?

I am not insisting on anything. I am simply showing that where differences exist, we are honest about them. The point about the differences I mentioned above is that they aren't racial, as to talk of race makes little sense for our species.

Tell me, is there a scientific law which states that all human races MUST have equal average intelligence?

Of course not. But the problem is to define "race". There is so little genetic variation in humans, it seems not to make any sense.

You're really gay about your science.

No, that would be me.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

172. Comment #115432 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 7:38 am

Comment #115427 by Henri Bergson

epeeist,
like the subtlety there. You're really gay about your science.

Just so long as I am not an ecce homo...

Other Comments by epeeist

173. Comment #115441 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 7:47 am

eepeist,
You're so human, all too human. I do behold the man you are. (what are we on about??)

Zara,
so it comes down to the fact as to whether 'races' is proper classification. If so, you grant there may be hierarchies.

Is it not possible to talk about common traits within a general racial grouping? Of course, talk about a, say, 'German' race is impossible. But should we not talk about a more general 'north European' race where certain characteristics exist?

If not, we should neither speak about intellectual differences between dog races (Boxers, Collies, etc). That would seem absurd.

Or do you fundamentally disagree that a human group could exist (even in theory) that was superior to others in general terms? What about if one was specifically bred through genetic manipulation? Like some kind of... �bermensch?

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

174. Comment #115443 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #115441 by Henri Bergson

eepeist,
(what are we on about??)

Well it is phenomenologically difficult to decide, but perhaps you have some Ideas about that.

Err.. Mornington Crescent.

Other Comments by epeeist

175. Comment #115444 by Steve Zara on January 24, 2008 at 7:51 am

Equality, like God, cannot be proven.

But being the simplest assumption, it is the most sensible place to start. Inequality needs to be demonstrated with good evidence, and, to date, there does not seem to be any.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

176. Comment #115445 by rcphelan on January 24, 2008 at 7:51 am

"there is, nevertheless, a mystical quality in Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot that makes each of them sacred and of infinite worth."

I guess a bit of a different take on the oft mentioned (around here at least) gruesome threesome.

I wonder where the pastoral minister was when Clinton was engaged in the mystical process leading to the bombing of that pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan?

This really is such a silly article. Most cultures find ways to denigrate any foreign culture, using race as a way to connect the dots. Darwin's discovery should end racism, recognizing that even "races" are a product of selection to prefer the survival of us humans. Would Winston Churchill's particular genetic code be suited to working on a Chinese rice farm? Hunting antelope on the savanna?

Other Comments by rcphelan

177. Comment #115446 by Steve Zara on January 24, 2008 at 7:55 am

so it comes down to the fact as to whether 'races' is proper classification. If so, you grant there may be hierarchies.

If so, but that 'if' needs to be demonstrated first.

Is it not possible to talk about common traits within a general racial grouping? Of course, talk about a, say, 'German' race is impossible. But should we not talk about a more general 'north European' race where certain characteristics exist?

No, because there has been so much mixing of different groups.

If not, we should neither speak about intellectual differences between dog races (Boxers, Collies, etc). That would seem absurd.

There is nothing like the variation in phenotype in humans as in breeds of dog.

Or do you fundamentally disagree that a human group could exist (even in theory) that was superior to others in general terms? What about if one was specifically bred through genetic manipulation? Like some kind of... �bermensch?

I am sure that could be possible. The question is whether any such group exists now. I don't see any evidence for it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

178. Comment #115449 by Artful_Dodger on January 24, 2008 at 7:57 am

I am truly amazed at the investment of time energy and thought that you are all making to dispute and discredit faith in God and to defend the inherently negative proposition of a-theism. Chapeau!

It reminds me of the poem by (I think) Lewis Carroll:

"As I was walking up the stairs
I met a man that wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish that man would go away"

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

179. Comment #115450 by Smith on January 24, 2008 at 7:58 am

Good luck to those who ever have the patience to exchange ideas with Scooternyc and Henri Bergson.

Other Comments by Smith

180. Comment #115451 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 7:59 am

Zara,

but as to the last points?

If inequality doesn't exist, then racism doesn't nor the food chain.

But that's the fact of inequality, not the value of inequality. You cannot 'prove' a value one way or another.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

181. Comment #115453 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 8:02 am

Comment #115449 by Artful_Dodger

It reminds me of the poem by (I think) Lewis Carroll:

"As I was walking up the stairs

I think I prefer a song from my youth, the chorus of which went

"Trip, trap, trip, trap
Over the rickety bridge"

Other Comments by epeeist

182. Comment #115454 by Epinephrine on January 24, 2008 at 8:04 am

- Steve Zara

The other problem of course is to define intelligence ;)

There is a tendency not to discuss intelligence, as it is poorly defined. As epeeist points out, relativity and composing a symphony are two different intelligences. Bach could compose 5 part fugues in his head, something that is probably beyond the majority of highly intelligent physicists, for example.

As to the general question of whether isolated populations of humans would have different mental abilities, I think it's fair to say that such a thing is most certainly possible. After all, intelligences are very likely to be genetic at some level, since they are evolved. They can therefore be selected for, and with sufficient time and different selection pressures they would naturally result in differences between groups. This is a bit of a taboo subject however, as it's often used to justify racism, and those embarking on this type of research typically have an agenda and wish to label some as superior, based (typically) on a single measure of "intelligence".

Since we can't come up with a measurement scale that is unbiased, and we can't even agree what intelligence is, whether there are multiple intelligences and what they are, or how to measure them, or how to disentangle the measures from cultural and sociological effects, it's not exactly an area that an be discussed to any great depth. The theoretical musings are fine, and I doubt anyone who believes that humans evolved would contest that it is possible that people vary in intelligence(s) due to genetics, and that this *could* have differing distributions worldwide. Just don't expect anyone to produce any meaningful evidence of differences.

Other Comments by Epinephrine

183. Comment #115455 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 8:04 am

Zara,

You write, 'No, because there has been so much mixing of different groups. '

Not too much though. We can distinguish human features from different global areas. If the phenotype differs at surface level, it can at the mental level. Of course, the differences may be subtle and hard to generalise, but still there.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

184. Comment #115456 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 8:04 am

PJG

I agree that being "weaker" makes women no less equal. However, "weaker" in what way? Muscular strength, maybe, but I seem to remember work done on pain thresholds which put women way above men (on account of them having to deal with childbirth I suspect) Maybe this makes it swings and roundabouts? ;o)

This taking us down a different route, but its interesting. What that study said was that women experience pain more acutely. So for the same type of harm done, it would hurt women more, so they have to "take" more pain and deal with it.

So you could look at it as women having a higher pain threshold, or that men are have a higher "harm threshold" before they feel pain.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

185. Comment #115457 by epeeist on January 24, 2008 at 8:04 am

Comment #115451 by Henri Bergson

But that's the fact of inequality, not the value of inequality. You cannot 'prove' a value one way or another.

Which is why science doesn't concern itself with proof, but disproof.

EDIT: sorry, misread your actual text and my response is not apposite. As you intimate, science can deal with the fact though not the value.

Other Comments by epeeist

186. Comment #115458 by al-rawandi on January 24, 2008 at 8:06 am

Beth,

Minority students are the ones who most often write to me after the course and express how much they enjoyed the class and how much they learned.

That is because the white students know everything already.

You cannot resist my logic!

woowoowoowoo *spinning hynotic wheels*

:-)

Other Comments by al-rawandi

187. Comment #115459 by Tyler Durden on January 24, 2008 at 8:06 am

...and to defend the inherently negative proposition of a-theism.

I actually spend most of my time explaining a-theism as opposed to defending it.

As for the proposition of a-theism being "inherently negative" - is the absence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy "negative"? No, just reality.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

188. Comment #115460 by Peacebeuponme on January 24, 2008 at 8:09 am

Artful_Dodger

I am truly amazed at the investment of time energy and thought that you are all making to dispute and discredit faith in God and to defend the inherently negative proposition of a-theism. Chapeau!

I am also anti-racist, anti-slavery and anti-monarchist. How negative I am! Luckily I bring it back somewhat by being pro-choice.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

189. Comment #115461 by quill on January 24, 2008 at 8:10 am

Okay, that seals it. Come on, guys, you have got to be on Obama's side now.

Other Comments by quill

190. Comment #115462 by Tosser on January 24, 2008 at 8:10 am

The article also doesn't seem to realize that our racial labels are not genetic categories.

In a strong sense, the study of genetics *is* the study of evolution, and the facts of genetics contradict the view that humans are divided into distinct groups.

Other Comments by Tosser

191. Comment #115463 by Steve Zara on January 24, 2008 at 8:11 am

Not too much though. We can distinguish human features from different global areas. If the phenotype differs at surface level, it can at the mental level. Of course, the differences may be subtle and hard to generalise, but still there.

But we don't find such mental differences. And it is hard to see why we would. The same mental capacities - tool making, language, planning and so on are going to be required anywhere on the planet, whereas skin colour and the ability to digest different foods is going to vary.

Also, may I refer you to Epinephrine's excellent post.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

192. Comment #115464 by irate_atheist on January 24, 2008 at 8:11 am

178. Comment #115443 by epeeist -

Err.. Mornington Crescent.

I'm sorry epeeist - but you can't move through Piccadilly Circus on the diagonal. You'll have to go back to Shepherd's Bush. Unless you're playing the New American rules, of course. (To wit, the winner starts 2 years after the other players and then declares themselves the winner.)

Other Comments by irate_atheist

193. Comment #115465 by quill on January 24, 2008 at 8:13 am

Artful_dodger:"I am truly amazed at the investment of time energy and thought that you are all making to dispute and discredit faith in God and to defend the inherently negative proposition of a-theism."

If atheism is an inherently negative position because it is defined by not believing in God, then freedom is an inherently negative position because all it means is not being restrained.

Under examination, I think you will find that the negativity is in your mind, in the negative way in which you look at atheism and atheists. It's your religion that teaches you to behave that way, just as it's your religion that causes people like the author of this article to reject fundamental scientific truths about the world they live in and to promulgate lies such as intelligent design.

Other Comments by quill

194. Comment #115466 by Steve Zara on January 24, 2008 at 8:14 am

You seem to be confusing value with phenotype. We could at least attempt to demonstrate different abilities in memory and reasoning. But that is not to assign "value".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

195. Comment #115467 by Tyler Durden on January 24, 2008 at 8:14 am

Comment #115452 by Beth:

Isn't it nice to think of us as all having come out of Africa? Doesn't that make others seem a little less frightening, and perhaps a lot less easy to hate?

Beth, while I agree wholeheartedly with you sentiment, this could be why there is so much hate and disagreement. Perhaps some people just don't want to believe we are "out of Africa" or even "cousins" - they want to believe the magic, fairy tale that they are different, special and unique.

Just my $0.02

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

196. Comment #115468 by al-rawandi on January 24, 2008 at 8:15 am

Quill,

I concede. I am going to the Obama camp. I am going to a fundraiser in February. You were right, I was wrong (Ron Paul).

Other Comments by al-rawandi

197. Comment #115469 by Glen Davidson on January 24, 2008 at 8:16 am

I've read most of the Origin of Species, but have not read anything else by Darwin. However, one can find apparent racist quotes from Darwin on the web quite readily:

"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178).

So I don't think that there's any question that Darwin wrote things that we'd certainly consider to be racist, assuming that the above quote is accurate.

Which changes nothing about Campolo being a buffoon who's suggesting that the issue is "that Darwin should be taught in public schools," which isn't even close to what we're saying. Nor does it change anything about his buffoonish misinterpretation of what "races" meant in the subtitle of Origin, which I reiterate meant essentially "varieties" in today's parlance.

We want schools to teach things like Miller's and Levine's textbook. The fact is that I have not once seen a science class that taught the Origin, let alone any that taught The Descent of Man. I have seen Origin taught in a college class in the history of science and portions in classes on the history of Western thought. As far as I know, those sorts of classes are the only places where "Darwin is taught," and these are typically higher level courses in which the context in which Darwin wrote was presented and discussed.

The one thing that should not be claimed is that Darwin didn't write "racist things," at least by today's standards (unless someone can show that the quote above is a fraud). It simply has no bearing on the debates about teaching evolution, since nobody in his right mind would think of using Darwin's writings as a primary text in science classes, or even as a supplemental text in the lower level science classes.

Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Other Comments by Glen Davidson

198. Comment #115471 by Steve Zara on January 24, 2008 at 8:18 am

I am truly amazed at the investment of time energy and thought that you are all making to dispute and discredit faith in God and to defend the inherently negative proposition of a-theism.

I am not defending atheism. I am simply after evidence to support beliefs.

Neither atheism or theism are inherently anything.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

199. Comment #115473 by Henri Bergson on January 24, 2008 at 8:19 am

Zara,

I really think you're pushing this too far and do not perhaps fully understand aspects of logic.
You write, 'skin colour and the ability to digest different foods is going to vary' but not mental abilities. Is, for example, spatial awareness (an aspect of intellectual ability) not at all dependent on the environment in which a people have evolved (e.g. a forest and a desert)?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Japanese have superior spatial awareness as compared to other 'races'... Is this impossible? Of course not.

I think you have ulterior motives here.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

200. Comment #115474 by hungarianelephant on January 24, 2008 at 8:21 am

I think one may find marked differences between some races, and some specific areas of the planet.

It may depend on what you test.

There's a mountain of data on educational achievement of racial groups in the US. It quite clearly shows that white children outperform their black counterparts.

However, the same data also shows that this is almost entirely due to the starting socio-economic circumstances. Once they are stripped out, there's little discernible difference. I.e. your test scores suffer because you are poor, not because you are black.

It seems reasonable to translate this into European vs. African. You could even argue that you should expect a white advantage in the US, since the ancestors took the choice to get up and move country (and might therefore be expected to be more able than average), rather than being forced to do so.

Granted, "academic test scores" is a pretty blunt instrument, but it tends to suggest that the underlying differences are slight.

Now if you were talking about cultures rather than races, that's an entirely different story. Where shall we start? India and Pakistan?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

Reload Comments | Back to Top