Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
shiloh357

Darwin, Evolution, and Racism

30 posts in this topic

Darwin, Evolution, and Racism

 

by  Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Kyle Butt, M.A.

 

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2654

 

The creation and evolution models stand in stark contradistinction in many ways. One model suggests the Universe is the product of an infinite, eternal, omnipotent Creator; the other credits time and random chance processes for the Universe and everything in it. The creation model declares that an intelligent Designer created a variety of life on Earth; evolution purports that all life evolved from a common ancestor. The creation model maintains that morality originated with the Creator; atheistic evolution implies that morality is a human invention without a universal standard.

 

Another major contrast between creation and evolution, which receives relatively little attention from evolutionists, concerns whether some groups of humans are innately superior to others. The biblical creation model indicates that all humans, regardless of shape, size, or color, descended from an original couple created specially by God (Genesis 1-2). Every human life is valuable (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 9:6), but no human (save God incarnate—John 1:1-3), nor any group of humans, is more valuable or superior than others (Romans 10:12; cf. Colossians 3:11). Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, is grounded in the idea that all humans evolved from ape-like creatures, and, since some groups of humans supposedly are less ape-like than others, some humans are more highly evolved, and thus, superior and of more value.

 

Multiplied millions, perhaps even billions, of people around the world are familiar with Charles Darwin’s most famous work, The Origin of Species. This year (2009) marks the book’s 150th anniversary—a fact highly publicized by today’s scientific establishment. It seems, however, that relatively few people are aware of the full title of Darwin’s 1859 work: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection—or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (emp. added). Favored races? Did Darwin believe that some races, or “species of men,” as he referred to them (1871, p. 395), were favored or more highly evolved than others? Although he steered clear of these ideas in The Origin of Species, his second major work on evolutionary theory, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871, did address the issue.

 

Darwin began the first chapter of The Descent of Man with these words: “He who wishes to decide whether man is the modified descendant of some pre-existing form, would probably first enquire whether man varies, however slightly, in bodily structure and in mental faculties; and if so, whether the variations are transmitted to his offspring in accordance with the laws which prevail with the lower animals” (1871, p. 395). Later, in his chapter titled “On the Affinities and Genealogy of Man,” Darwin wrote:

 

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 (p. 521).

 

 

 Clearly, Darwin was convinced that the more “civilised races” (e.g., Caucasian) would one day exterminate the more savage races, which he considered to be less evolved (and thus more ape-like) than Caucasians. Darwin believed that “the negro” and “Australian” are like sub-species, somewhere between Caucasians and apes.

 

[NOTE: In addition to Darwin’s racist comments in The Descent of Man, he also included sexist statements. His evolutionary views led him to believe that “[t]he chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown 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.... [T]he average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.... [M]an has ultimately become superior to woman” (pp. 873-874).]

 

 

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 (p. 521).

 

One of Darwin’s closest friends and defenders, the prominent 19th-century English biologist Thomas Huxley, was even more direct in his evolutionary-based racist remarks. In his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White,” Huxley remarked:

According to “Darwin’s Bulldog,” as Huxley was called, the “Negro” is not equal to “the white man.” The alleged smaller-brained, big-jawed negro supposedly cannot compete on the same playing field with the white man. Huxley espoused the false notion that “[t]he highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins” (1865, emp. added). Little did Huxley know that less then 150 years later an African-American would sit in the highest office of the most wealthy and powerful nation on Earth.

 

 

It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest (emp. added).

 

 

The fact is, Darwinian evolution implies that some groups of humans are closer to our alleged ape-like ancestors in their mental faculties than others. Thus, some groups of humans supposedly are superior to others. The Bible teaches exactly the opposite. There are not different species or races of men; there is just one human race—an intelligent people (see Lyons, 2002)—that God created “in His image” in the beginning (Genesis 1-2; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002), both “male and female” (Genesis 1:27, emp. added). All of humanity descended from Adam and Eve, the first couple (1 Corinthians 15:45; Genesis 3:20), and later Noah, through whom the Earth was repopulated after the Flood (Genesis 6-10). Whether we are red, yellow, black, or white, we share equal value as human beings, God’s image-bearers (Genesis 1:26-28; cf. Romans 10:12). What’s more, all men stand on equal footing before God as sinners (Romans 3:10,23) in need of a Savior (John 8:24; Mark 16:15-16).

 
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hummm,   interesting Shiloh.....    I think that Forest Gump would say,  "Well that's about all there is to say about that."

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol Other One. Interesting great job Shiloh as usual.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what a bunch of old timey quotes have to do with scientific knowledge a century and a half later... hmm. Saying so and so believed in animal magnetism doesn't mean he couldn't have had a good physical theory. Likewise, having false ethical beliefs has nothing to do with whether or not the broader concept of biological evolution is valid.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wasn't there racism long before there was a Darwin?  Didn't Christians use the Bible to support racism and slavery long before Darwin came along?

Edited by LookingForAnswers
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it had to do with that serpent seed stuff that really made no sense.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wasn't there racism long before there was a Darwin?  Didn't Christians use the Bible to support racism and slavery long before Darwin came along?

Perhaps you should read the article.  The article isn't saying that racism came from Evolution.   The article is pointing out that it is an enabler for racism.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what a bunch of old timey quotes have to do with scientific knowledge a century and a half later... hmm. Saying so and so believed in animal magnetism doesn't mean he couldn't have had a good physical theory. Likewise, having false ethical beliefs has nothing to do with whether or not the broader concept of biological evolution is valid.

You're oversimplifying what the article claims.   Those quotes relflect how Darwin viewed evolution relaitive to modern humans.  

 

Now today in our socially sensitive, politically corrrect world, Evolution is selectively applied to human beings. If we applied it across the board the way we do with the rest of the created order, we would have to admit that according to evolution, some human being MUST be evolutionarily inferior to other human beings.  Darwin was simply being honest about the naturally logical conclusions that evolution leads to when applied to human existence.

 

The cruelty is evoution isn't really seen until it is applied to human beings.  Human beings according to most evolutionists are just higher animals, higher primates.   If your argument is that God used evolution to create human beings, then you need to be honest about the theory and where it leads for human beings.   If evolution didn't stop, and is still part of our world, then it must apply accross the board to all evolved creatures.  You can't exclude human beings from the struggle for survival.    I mean most racism is based on survival.  If you look at most white supremist literature, a common theme in their books and literature is that they are fighting for their survival against the inferior races of sub-humans, or "mongrel" races.

 

It is historical fact that Maragaret Sanger, who was the founder of Planned Parenthood  considered blacks less evolved and inferior to whites and abortion was originally created to be part of her plan to eventually rid the world of black people in additoin to steriizing black people so that they could not reproduce.

 

HItler was influenced  by both Darwin and Margaret Sanger.   He viewed Jews, Gypsies, and all other races inferior to his mythical "aryan" race.   But his justification was to paint nonaryans as being descended from apes.  In both abortion and in Hitler's holocaust the justification for murder is to paint your humans as lower animals on the evolutionary chain.

 

Evolutionists are cool with human beings higher primates until someone decides that you are inferior he/she needs to get rid you to make their survival and the survival of their offspring, possible.   Suddenly "survival of the fittest"  becomes overrated when applied to human existence.

 

Darwin's "old timey" quotes were enablers for those who were able to advance their racist agendas and it is the heart of racism today.   The fact that liberal proponents of evolution are embarrassed by the way some apply evolution to human existence, the truth is that the racists are actually more honest about the social implcations of evolution than social liberals.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not sure what a bunch of old timey quotes have to do with scientific knowledge a century and a half later... hmm. Saying so and so believed in animal magnetism doesn't mean he couldn't have had a good physical theory. Likewise, having false ethical beliefs has nothing to do with whether or not the broader concept of biological evolution is valid.

You're oversimplifying what the article claims.   Those quotes relflect how Darwin viewed evolution relaitive to modern humans.  

 

Now today in our socially sensitive, politically corrrect world, Evolution is selectively applied to human beings. If we applied it across the board the way we do with the rest of the created order, we would have to admit that according to evolution, some human being MUST be evolutionarily inferior to other human beings.  Darwin was simply being honest about the naturally logical conclusions that evolution leads to when applied to human existence.

 

The cruelty is evoution isn't really seen until it is applied to human beings.  Human beings according to most evolutionists are just higher animals, higher primates.   If your argument is that God used evolution to create human beings, then you need to be honest about the theory and where it leads for human beings.   If evolution didn't stop, and is still part of our world, then it must apply accross the board to all evolved creatures.  You can't exclude human beings from the struggle for survival.    I mean most racism is based on survival.  If you look at most white supremist literature, a common theme in their books and literature is that they are fighting for their survival against the inferior races of sub-humans, or "mongrel" races.

 

It is historical fact that Maragaret Sanger, who was the founder of Planned Parenthood  considered blacks less evolved and inferior to whites and abortion was originally created to be part of her plan to eventually rid the world of black people in additoin to steriizing black people so that they could not reproduce.

 

HItler was influenced  by both Darwin and Margaret Sanger.   He viewed Jews, Gypsies, and all other races inferior to his mythical "aryan" race.   But his justification was to paint nonaryans as being descended from apes.  In both abortion and in Hitler's holocaust the justification for murder is to paint your humans as lower animals on the evolutionary chain.

 

Evolutionists are cool with human beings higher primates until someone decides that you are inferior he/she needs to get rid you to make their survival and the survival of their offspring, possible.   Suddenly "survival of the fittest"  becomes overrated when applied to human existence.

 

Darwin's "old timey" quotes were enablers for those who were able to advance their racist agendas and it is the heart of racism today.   The fact that liberal proponents of evolution are embarrassed by the way some apply evolution to human existence, the truth is that the racists are actually more honest about the social implcations of evolution than social liberals.

 

Well... evolution properly understood in the modern science has  no directionality. That's why there's an emphasis now there is no 'ladder' of life. There is no monkey, then ape, then man type of progression. There's a bush of life. Everything around us is equally 'well adapted' because it's around and still propagating. 'Well adapted' does not, and *should* have zero moral or ethical implications whatsoever. Those are founded elsewhere, such as, in our theological understandings.

 

It's true, I agree those guys were not only racists but scientifically ignorant. They had half-baked ideas that they turned into very unfortunate social programs. But, those were not based on *modern* evolution. But people misunderstand and misuse perfectly good ideas all of the time. I mean, you need only go to the 'metaphysical' section of your Barnes and Noble to see how badly quantum mechanics is abused, or the theory of relativity. A scientific idea being abused or misunderstood-- even by researchers in the field! -  means something about the person being wrong, it doesn't reflect on the theories in question. The question that is relevant in  my mind is, is the idea itself a good one, even if it has been ill used by others.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 'Well adapted' does not, and *should* have zero moral or ethical implications whatsoever. Those are founded elsewhere, such as, in our theological understandings.

 

 

According to whom? From a theistic point of view one could say this, but the point of the theory of evolution is to explain the world according to naturalism, without invoking a God. When God is left out of the equation what prevents one from attaching moral weight to something like evolutionary fitness or any other subjective criteria for that matter? In fact doesn't survival of the fittest imply that the highly adapted will prevail while the lesser adapted populations will shrink?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0