Darwin, Evolution, and Racism

[a-seeker]

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).

 

Was there a question to this?  It doesn't seem to invite any discussion whatsoever.  Are you inviting persons to reconcile evolution with Genesis?  Are you claiming that one who subscribes to some form of evolution must, by necessity, be a racist?

 

I for one do not believe that societal ills come from doctrines; the disease is already there.  The doctrines (whether scientific or biblical) are appealed to as justifications.  It was not belief that Ham was the ancestor of Africans that led whites to enslave them.  Avarice was there already. Cheap work was available.  The Biblical "support" came later.  Again, it is not Biblical rulings on relations between husband and wife that lead to domestic violence and oppression.  Men abuse and oppress women because we are, in some sense, afraid of them (I will not elaborate that since it is not the topic); the Biblical injunctions are then read to justify the act.

 

I have no problem with evolution as a theorem.  There is for me no logical maneuver from that to a general entitlement.

 

clb

 

clb

 

clb

[a-seeker]

 

Maybe you have a point insofar as how people view the world more generally, where they come from, where they are going and all this, just does affect stuff like morality and ethics, whether it is consistent or follows from inference strictly thought out or not. If that is what you mean then I have a better idea of what you mean here, but I'd still protest, that people being inspired by it to make up  bad ethics doesn't mean the theory itself is wrong.

 

What I mean is that how you view your origins, meaning if you feel you are the product of evolution and simply a higher animal or if you believe you are made in God's image as a special creation from the dust of the earth, apart from the rest of the created order.  That will affect your worldview and your view of absolute morality/ethics.

 

 

The tree or bush of life is different because the ladder suggested some kind of progression from a lower to higher animal as if there is some top, and some bottom. The modern understanding is that every animal is equally 'on the top' as any other animal, including bacteria, including sea stars, sharks, elephants and so on. There's not one 'more highly evolved' and one 'less evolved'. The stuff that exists today exists simply because its parents/parent procreated and so on. There should be no lessons to be learned here about value because there's not really any room for that in that picture.

 

I hear modern evolutionists all of the time referring to man as a higher animal, but in the sense that man is higher than a dog or a cat, not that we have some dogs that are higher than other dogs or human that are higher than other humans.  The point is that if you see yourself as merely an evolved animal and you see others as evolved animals, then at some point, there are going to be some who are viewed as less fit, not less evolved, like they would have said say 70 years ago.

 

 

Any value picture is going to come from misunderstanding the theory or something else. As an atheist I got it from a metaethical position which includes objective moral values (as I describe above). Others promote relativism, or think they do. Most just don't think it through much and posit random stuff as good or bad without really thinking about what that means or why anybody should care about the 'good of the species' (yeah I have heard that as an excuse... ).

 

Its' not a matter of saying Evolution actively causes people to devalue other people.  It is a matter of where an evolutionary worldview leads.  Margaret Sanger didn't say that evolution made her do what she did.   Rather it was the worldview that developed from her view of humans as animals. She didn't misunderstand the theory at all.  She was completely consistent with theory as it was understood in her day.

 

I don't see the distinction between "evolution doesn't actively cause people to devalue other people" and "it is a matter of where an evolutionary worldview leads."  If the worldview leads (inevitably) to devaluing people, then evolution does actively cause the devaluation of humans.  If it doesn't, then it is possible to subscribe to evolution and still maintain all men and women are made in the image of God.

 

clb

[LookingForAnswers]

Humans by our very nature devalue one another and put some above others, it has always been the case and always will be till Jesus comes back.  Evolution is not needed for racism and racism is not caused by or even amplified by Evolution.  

[a-seeker]

Humans by our very nature devalue one another and put some above others, it has always been the case and always will be till Jesus comes back.  Evolution is not needed for racism and racism is not caused by or even amplified by Evolution.  

The charge is that an evolutionary world view will ultimately lead to prejudice.  I don't know how this can be proved (clearly not on the Scientific Method  

 

But I will concede the point.  However, there are some out there who have no problem holding creation and evolution together.  Evolution is simply the process by which God created the species.  Genesis (to me) makes two very important comments on man's dignity.  On the one hand, we were created last and were given dominion over all of creation; on the other, we were made from dust.  The psalmist puts it exquisitely: "what is man that thou art mindful of him........yet you have exalted him......"

 

We have cause to be absolutely humble; and yet we are glorified all the same.

 

Evolution says we are (thus far) a superior species........yet we let's remember our origins.  Monkeys, and even before.

 

I am not getting into a debate of whether Evolution is true; I am only pointing out that, true or not, the same themes of Genesis are preserved.

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

 

Humans by our very nature devalue one another and put some above others, it has always been the case and always will be till Jesus comes back.  Evolution is not needed for racism and racism is not caused by or even amplified by Evolution.  

The charge is that an evolutionary world view will ultimately lead to prejudice.  I don't know how this can be proved (clearly not on the Scientific Method

 

But I will concede the point.  However, there are some out there who have no problem holding creation and evolution together.  Evolution is simply the process by which God created the species.  Genesis (to me) makes two very important comments on man's dignity.  On the one hand, we were created last and were given dominion over all of creation; on the other, we were made from dust.  The psalmist puts it exquisitely: "what is man that thou art mindful of him........yet you have exalted him......"

 

We have cause to be absolutely humble; and yet we are glorified all the same.

 

Evolution says we are (thus far) a superior species........yet we let's remember our origins.  Monkeys, and even before.

 

I am not getting into a debate of whether Evolution is true; I am only pointing out that, true or not, the same themes of Genesis are preserved.

 

clb

 

 

"The charge is that an evolutionary world view will ultimately lead to prejudice.  I don't know how this can be proved"

 

How about by looking @ the Full Title of Darwin's Book...

 

"Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."

 

Any clue there?

[LookingForAnswers]

Except that the title is not referring to races in the human meaning. Races is a term focused on the animal kingdom not human races.

Context is key

[Fez]

Except that the title is not referring to races in the human meaning. Races is a term focused on the animal kingdom not human races.

Context is key

Yes it is, perhaps you should re read the OP, here let me assist..

 

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), 

 

[LookingForAnswers]

Thanks, the OP is a bit too biased to use for context. The title of the book is not referring to humans any more than it is every other animal in the animal kingdom. And the book does not speak of greater value, just better survival chances.

[a-seeker]

 

 

Humans by our very nature devalue one another and put some above others, it has always been the case and always will be till Jesus comes back.  Evolution is not needed for racism and racism is not caused by or even amplified by Evolution.  

The charge is that an evolutionary world view will ultimately lead to prejudice.  I don't know how this can be proved (clearly not on the Scientific Method

 

But I will concede the point.  However, there are some out there who have no problem holding creation and evolution together.  Evolution is simply the process by which God created the species.  Genesis (to me) makes two very important comments on man's dignity.  On the one hand, we were created last and were given dominion over all of creation; on the other, we were made from dust.  The psalmist puts it exquisitely: "what is man that thou art mindful of him........yet you have exalted him......"

 

We have cause to be absolutely humble; and yet we are glorified all the same.

 

Evolution says we are (thus far) a superior species........yet we let's remember our origins.  Monkeys, and even before.

 

I am not getting into a debate of whether Evolution is true; I am only pointing out that, true or not, the same themes of Genesis are preserved.

 

clb

 

 

"The charge is that an evolutionary world view will ultimately lead to prejudice.  I don't know how this can be proved"

 

How about by looking @ the Full Title of Darwin's Book...

 

"Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."

 

Any clue there?

 

Apologies.

 

I thought we were talking about evolution in general.......not Darwinianism.  Nor about a book's title.....

 

yes, of course if we are talking about an evolutionary process the end of which is one favored race of humans of above another; well then, it's a truism that it produces prejudice.  but not everyone has to believe in Darwinian evolution in all its details.

 

clb

[alphaparticle]

 

Maybe you have a point insofar as how people view the world more generally, where they come from, where they are going and all this, just does affect stuff like morality and ethics, whether it is consistent or follows from inference strictly thought out or not. If that is what you mean then I have a better idea of what you mean here, but I'd still protest, that people being inspired by it to make up  bad ethics doesn't mean the theory itself is wrong.

 

What I mean is that how you view your origins, meaning if you feel you are the product of evolution and simply a higher animal or if you believe you are made in God's image as a special creation from the dust of the earth, apart from the rest of the created order.  That will affect your worldview and your view of absolute morality/ethics.

 

 

What should matter more is your metaphysics and metaethics. I am not sure why a theory about how the physical world interacts, which is what evolution is, should affect your values. Whether I think string theory is true or not doesn't, neither should this.

 

 

 

 

The tree or bush of life is different because the ladder suggested some kind of progression from a lower to higher animal as if there is some top, and some bottom. The modern understanding is that every animal is equally 'on the top' as any other animal, including bacteria, including sea stars, sharks, elephants and so on. There's not one 'more highly evolved' and one 'less evolved'. The stuff that exists today exists simply because its parents/parent procreated and so on. There should be no lessons to be learned here about value because there's not really any room for that in that picture.

 

I hear modern evolutionists all of the time referring to man as a higher animal, but in the sense that man is higher than a dog or a cat, not that we have some dogs that are higher than other dogs or human that are higher than other humans.  The point is that if you see yourself as merely an evolved animal and you see others as evolved animals, then at some point, there are going to be some who are viewed as less fit, not less evolved, like they would have said say 70 years ago.

 

 

In the evolutionary picture, humans are not higher than, or 'more fit' than bacteria, cats or slugs. any species that seems to have a stable population, or growing population, is 'equally fit' and equally 'evolved', 'progressed' or whatever else you want to insert in there. Saying that humans are 'higher than' cats *based on evolution* is confused about what the theory says.

 

 

 

 

Any value picture is going to come from misunderstanding the theory or something else. As an atheist I got it from a metaethical position which includes objective moral values (as I describe above). Others promote relativism, or think they do. Most just don't think it through much and posit random stuff as good or bad without really thinking about what that means or why anybody should care about the 'good of the species' (yeah I have heard that as an excuse... ).

 

Its' not a matter of saying Evolution actively causes people to devalue other people.  It is a matter of where an evolutionary worldview leads.  Margaret Sanger didn't say that evolution made her do what she did.   Rather it was the worldview that developed from her view of humans as animals. She didn't misunderstand the theory at all.  She was completely consistent with theory as it was understood in her day.

 

I'd say, as I stated above, purely physical theories, which give us information about how the physical world interacts, cannot be consistent or inconsistent with a  moral theory. These are categorically different arenas. Insofar as someone is a naturalist, denies that we have souls, denies that there are objective  moral truths etc., then yeah, they could justify all kinds of terrible things for arbitrary reasons.