Is Darwinism racist?

[Riprorin]

Recently, in Louisiana, African American State Representative Sharon Weston Broome charged that, "Darwin's ideas on how humans evolved are racist and the key reason for race problems [and] provide the main rationale for racism." As Broome logically concluded, "If evolution has provided the main rationale for racism, and we are teaching our children evolution in schools, then correspondingly we are teaching them racist principles."

Consider this racist trash from "American Renaissance" vol 3, number 12:

Origin of Species

Clearly, all these differences cannot be dismissed with the fashionable notion that race is nothing more than a matter of skin color. No one knows for how long the different races have been evolving independently, but it might be necessary to go back one million years or more to find an ancestor common to all races. Clearly, a great deal of divergence has taken place during that time.

In his magisterial work, Race, John Baker suggests that certain racial groups are already so different from each other that they are not, technically speaking, the same species. Certain matings between extremely unrelated stocks - Bushmen and Europeans, for example - are thought to have produced only female children, or in some cases hybrids that could not mate successfully among themselves. These are well-known signs of an unrelatedness that is so vast as to be verging on separation into different species.

Indeed, according to Dr. Baker, in the prehistoric past different races and sub-races probably avoided crossbreeding and behaved as if they were different species. He points out that in nature, animals that are no more different from each other than northern Europeans and southern Europeans never breed with each other. It is only in domestication that a horse, for example, can be made to mate with a donkey. Man is, of course, the most domesticated of animals. As the French anthropologist Paul Broca remarked, "Man, especially civilized man, is of all the animals the least exclusive in his amours."

Separate development is, to use Charles Darwin's phrase, the origin of species. Apes and humans once had a common ancestor but are now distinct species. Likewise, racial differences are nature's first steps towards the creation of new species. Left to themselves for long enough, the different races of man would have become so different that they could no longer produce fertile young. This might well have happened if the domesticating effects of civilization had come later, or if discovery and travel had not brought isolated peoples into contact with each other.

One of the great ironies of today's quest for "diversity," - the forcible mixing of peoples as unlike each other as possible - is that it is a destroyer of diversity. It is only through separation that nature can produce that culmination of true diversity: a new species.


Here's the whole pathetic article:

Race and Physical Differences

 

[Anubis]

we are still all human

 

[her209]

Was this written by Darwin or did someone just use his theories??? There's a big difference.

 

[Entity]

Darwin was not racist; many people, like Spencer or Davenport, have applied his theories (e.g. Social Darwinism) and have produced a distinctly racist, eugenic, or otherwise dangerous tint. Regardless, it was not Darwin's work which spawned this: his work was specifically limited to a very specific biological domain, and was not even remotely related to the concepts many have derived "from it."

I've written a few papers on this, but don't have my notes around - or the time to really write much about it - right now.

Here's a good essay on this topic.

Rob

 

[silverpig]

Given: Let's say it is racist.

Hypothetical: Let's say Darwinism is correct.

Question: Should we stop teaching it?

 

[Riprorin]

Do you think this part is correct:

Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"); viz: At some future period, 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 a baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

 

[Riprorin]

Darwin was not racist; many people, like Spencer or Davenport, have applied his theories (e.g. Social Darwinism) and have produced a distinctly racist, eugenic, or otherwise dangerous tint.

Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, who founded the eugenics movement, believed very strongly that intelligence was mainly hereditary. He was also convinced there were profound differences in mental ability between the races. He regarded Negroes as barely human at all.

Do you consider this a dangerous "tint"?

 

[glenn1]

How can an intellectual concept that describes a process be racist? That's like saying meterology is racist because looking at a barometer can predict rain in a predominantly black city.

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: TheEvil1
we are still all human

Reminds me of something I said once, we all bleed red.

 

[Riprorin]

How can an intellectual concept that describes a process be racist? That's like saying meterology is racist because looking at a barometer can predict rain in a predominantly black city.

Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or races evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: glenn1
How can an intellectual concept that describes a process be racist? That's like saying meterology is racist because looking at a barometer can predict rain in a predominantly black city.

 

[glenn1]

Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or races evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others.

Maybe your science courses were different than mine, but my understanding of Darwin's theories was that lifeforms adapt themselves to environmental stimuli. Thus, humans living in sunnier climates would adapt by an increase in melatonin in the skin, and those in less sunny climates would have less melatonin... ya know, the story about white and grey moths in industrial England, and that sort of thing? It had nothing at all to do with how "ape-like" blacks are vice whites or asians, or anything of the sort.

 

[Dudd]

How is that racist? It looks at medical studies and reports the findings. News flash: blacks, whites, and asians are different from one another. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the reports he mentions, but I don't find it to be a stretch at all to believe that different races have different physical characteristics.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or races evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others.

Maybe your science courses were different than mine, but my understanding of Darwin's theories was that lifeforms adapt themselves to environmental stimuli. Thus, humans living in sunnier climates would adapt by an increase in melatonin in the skin, and those in less sunny climates would have less melatonin... ya know, the story about white and grey moths in industrial England, and that sort of thing? It had nothing at all to do with how "ape-like" blacks are vice whites or asians, or anything of the sort.

That's Survival of the Fittest also done by him. He also did the Speciation theories.

 

[Riprorin]

It looks at medical studies and reports the findings. News flash: blacks, whites, and asians are different from one another.

Really, how different are they?

Scientists found that if any two people from anywhere in the world were compared, the basic genetic differences between these two would typically be around 0.2 percent - even if they came from the same people group.

So-called "racial" characteristics that many think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 6 percent of this 0.2 percent variation, which amounts to a mere 0.012 percent difference generically. In other words, the so-called "racial" differences are absolutely trivial.

Recent I.Q. tests of people throughout the world have found that, with allowance for cultural differences, the I.Q. ranges of all extant identified races is extremely close. The pygmy population of Africa, supposedly the most backward race extant today, test close to average when acclimated to Western life. Few differences are found between the second and third generation pygmies living in large Australian cities who are acclimated to the established European population.

It is now widely accepted that, given equality of background and similarity of experiences, blacks as a whole closely equal whites in across the-board performance. This confirms prominent anthropologist, Ruth Benedict's early conclusion that "the most careful investigation" shows there is no significant difference between the scores of blacks and whites, even though it is difficult to control for the accumulative effects of deprivation.

? Most studies also find that Orientals and Jews score about ten points higher than Europeans. Reasons other than innate differences are often found to account for this difference, and few scientists now accept the view that genetic differences can account for the level found.

All human beings in the world today, are classified as Homo sapiens. Biologically, there really is only one race of humans.

 

[Riprorin]

Maybe your science courses were different than mine, but my understanding of Darwin's theories was that lifeforms adapt themselves to environmental stimuli. Thus, humans living in sunnier climates would adapt by an increase in melatonin in the skin, and those in less sunny climates would have less melatonin... ya know, the story about white and grey moths in industrial England, and that sort of thing? It had nothing at all to do with how "ape-like" blacks are vice whites or asians, or anything of the sort.

Be careful about what you learn in school.


Goodbye, peppered moths
A classic evolutionary story comes unstuck
by Carl Wieland

First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo 21(3):56,
June?August 1999

The ?textbook story? of England?s famous peppered moths (Biston betularia) goes like this. The moth comes in light and dark (melanic) forms. Pollution from the Industrial Revolution darkened the tree trunks, mostly by killing the light-coloured covering lichen (plus soot).

The lighter forms, which had been well camouflaged against the light background, now ?stood out?, and so birds more readily ate them. Therefore, the proportion of dark moths increased dramatically. Later, as pollution was cleaned up, the light moth became predominant again.

The shift in moth numbers was carefully documented through catching them in traps. Release-recapture experiments confirmed that in polluted forests, more of the dark form survived for recapture, and vice versa. In addition, birds were filmed preferentially eating the less camouflaged moths off tree trunks.

The story has generated boundless evolutionary enthusiasm. H.B. Kettlewell, who performed most of the classic experiments, said that if Darwin had seen this, ?He would have witnessed the consummation and confirmation of his life?s work.?1

Actually, even as it stands, the textbook story demonstrates nothing more than gene frequencies shifting back and forth, by natural selection, within one created kind. It offers nothing which, even given millions of years, could add the sort of complex design information needed for ameba-to-man evolution.

Even L. Harrison Matthews, a biologist so distinguished he was asked to write the foreword for the 1971 edition of Darwin?s Origin of Species, said therein that the peppered moth example showed natural selection, but not ?evolution in action?.

However, it turns out that this classic story is full of holes anyway. Peppered moths don?t even rest on tree trunks during the day.

Kettlewell and others attracted the moths into traps in the forest either with light, or by releasing female pheromones ? in each case, they only flew in at night. So where do they spend the day? British scientist Cyril Clarke, who investigated the peppered moth extensively, wrote:

?But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. ? In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.?2

The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).3

And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done ? dead moths were glued to the tree.4 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ?a lot of fraudulent photographs?.5,6

Other studies have shown a very poor correlation between the lichen covering and the respective moth populations. And when one group of researchers glued dead moths onto trunks in an unpolluted forest, the birds took more of the dark (less camouflaged) ones, as expected. But their traps captured four times as many dark moths as light ones ? the opposite of textbook predictions!7

University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ?the prize horse in our stable?, has to be thrown out.

He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real.5

Regrettably, hundreds of millions of students have once more been indoctrinated with a ?proof? of evolution which is riddled with error, fraud and half-truths.8

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

It looks at medical studies and reports the findings. News flash: blacks, whites, and asians are different from one another.

Really, how different are they?

Scientists found that if any two people from anywhere in the world were compared, the basic genetic differences between these two would typically be around 0.2 percent - even if they came from the same people group.

So-called "racial" characteristics that many think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 6 percent of this 0.2 percent variation, which amounts to a mere 0.012 percent difference generically. In other words, the so-called "racial" differences are absolutely trivial.

Recent I.Q. tests of people throughout the world have found that, with allowance for cultural differences, the I.Q. ranges of all extant identified races is extremely close. The pygmy population of Africa, supposedly the most backward race extant today, test close to average when acclimated to Western life. Few differences are found between the second and third generation pygmies living in large Australian cities who are acclimated to the established European population.

It is now widely accepted that, given equality of background and similarity of experiences, blacks as a whole closely equal whites in across the-board performance. This confirms prominent anthropologist, Ruth Benedict's early conclusion that "the most careful investigation" shows there is no significant difference between the scores of blacks and whites, even though it is difficult to control for the accumulative effects of deprivation.

? Most studies also find that Orientals and Jews score about ten points higher than Europeans. Reasons other than innate differences are often found to account for this difference, and few scientists now accept the view that genetic differences can account for the level found.

All human beings in the world today, are classified as Homo sapiens. Biologically, there really is only one race of humans.

And we have what, 99% DNA similarity between ourselves and the chimpanzee? Face it, .2% is a fair amount when it comes to DNA. We all are homosapiens, obviously. However, within this group, there are certain differences, which are clearly pointed out in the article. One race is not better than another, simply different. If you can refute the data in the article, go ahead, but to call it racist without even showing that the studies mentioned in the article are flawed is simply insane. I don't think that anything he points out is shocking; Europeans are better at swimming, Africans have evolved to be able to run faster, etc.

 

[Riprorin]

Oh, so you agree with these statements in the article:

"Studies have repeatedly found that black men have more of the male hormone testosterone in their blood than whites do. Testosterone is directly related to physical and sexual aggressiveness, but it also combines significantly with intelligence. Men who are intelligent but who have high testosterone levels are likely to be more successful, socially and professionally, than intelligent men with low testosterone levels. Men who are unintelligent but who have high testosterone are more likely to be criminals than unintelligent men with low testosterone. High crime rates among blacks are consistent with low intelligence and high testosterone."

"Although it has long been the subject of ribald speculation, the races do appear to differ in the size of their sex organs. The best data seem to have been gathered in 1979 by P. H. Gebhard and A. B. Johnson. They actually took measurements and found that popular myths are correct: blacks are better endowed than whites. In extensive interviews, they also found that black men at least report themselves to be less restrained than whites in their willingness to commit adultery, likelihood of frequenting prostitutes, and number of sexual partners."

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Oh, so you agree with these statements in the article:

"Studies have repeatedly found that black men have more of the male hormone testosterone in their blood than whites do. Testosterone is directly related to physical and sexual aggressiveness, but it also combines significantly with intelligence. Men who are intelligent but who have high testosterone levels are likely to be more successful, socially and professionally, than intelligent men with low testosterone levels. Men who are unintelligent but who have high testosterone are more likely to be criminals than unintelligent men with low testosterone. High crime rates among blacks are consistent with low intelligence and high testosterone."

"Although it has long been the subject of ribald speculation, the races do appear to differ in the size of their sex organs. The best data seem to have been gathered in 1979 by P. H. Gebhard and A. B. Johnson. They actually took measurements and found that popular myths are correct: blacks are better endowed than whites. In extensive interviews, they also found that black men at least report themselves to be less restrained than whites in their willingness to commit adultery, likelihood of frequenting prostitutes, and number of sexual partners."

I haven't seen the studies outside of this article, so I really can't comment on them. However, assuming that those two paragraphs are a factual representation of a scientifically sound study, I'd say that they weren't racist. Facts cannot be racist in and of themselves. However, if the author misrepresented the findings of those studies to fit his particular agenda, then that would be racist. Seeing as I haven't reviewed the studies in question and have no qualifications to do so, I'd have to say that I'm not sure.

 

[Riprorin]

High crime rates among blacks are consistent with low intelligence and high testosterone

I don't need to see any studies to know this is BS.

Here's the white supremist site I got the article from:

American Renaissance

Sounds like it might appeal to you.

McQuaid, right? Probably live in Pittsford. Ever known a black person?

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

High crime rates among blacks are consistent with low intelligence and high testosterone

I don't need to see any studies to know this is BS.

Here's the white supremist site I got the article from:

American Renaissance

Sounds like it might appeal to you.

McQuaid, right? Probably live in Pittsford. Ever known a black person?

Actually Brighton, and shocker, there is a black or two at McQuaid. To be honest, I didn't know anything about American Resistance. I just read your link, didn't bother looking at the site backround. Too busy watching Clerks. Anyways, it appears that the group is a white supremacy group, so anything they say does need to be taken with a grain of salt. Obviously they view these studies with an eye towards furthering their agenda. However, before I make any conclusions regarding the validity of their statements, I'd have to see the original study that they referenced. To be honest, I skipped over the black part and simply read that high crime rates are consistant with low intelligence and high testosterone. That sounds like a perfectly logical conclusion to draw. I'd be willing to bet that if this were true, it would skip over race lines, meaning that they attributed it to blacks solely to further their racist agenda. Like I said before, however, I'd like to take a look at their studies before I completely discredit anything in the article. Just because I disagree with the message behind the article does not mean that it cannot contain pieces of the truth.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

It doesn't work that way. "Racial" variations are physical.
Intelligence as we think of it isn't even genetic any more than insanity is genetic.

Don't believe crap written by journalists over real work researched by anthropologists.

 

[Riprorin]

Actually Brighton, and shocker, there is a black or two at McQuaid.

Brighton was my second guess.

I grew up in Greece and went to Mooney. I'm going to send my son to our arch rival, Aquinas.

I know at least one black went to McQuaid: I remember watching Eugene Goodlow play. He was one heck of an athelete.

 

[Dudd]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
He was one heck of an athelete.

There's a joke there, and I'm not even going to touch it.

 

[Riprorin]

Ooops, one too many e's.

Hey, it is 3:00 AM!