The Dark Side of Darwin's Legacy
- Nick
- Posts: 71
- Joined: September 10th, 2009, 8:49 am
- Location: Yiwu City, China
The Dark Side of Darwin's Legacy
This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the landmark work in which Darwin laid forth his theory of natural selection. While celebrations have emphasized the British naturalist's giant role in the advancement of human progress, British political journalist Dennis Sewell is not convinced. In a new book, The Political Gene: How Darwin's Ideas Changed Politics, he highlights how often — and how easily — Darwin's big idea has been harnessed for sinister political ends. According to Sewell, evolution is scientifically undeniable, but its contribution to human well-being is unclear.
Should we reassess Darwin's legacy?
Bicentennial celebrations have portrayed Darwin as a kindly old gentleman pottering around an English house and garden. What that misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues. He asserted that different races of mankind had traveled different distances along the evolutionary path — white Caucasians were at the top of the racial hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below. [Racism] was a widespread prejudice in British society at the time, but he presented racial hierarchy as a matter of science. He also held that the poor were genetically second-rate — which inspired eugenics.
In your research, you found vestiges of this warped way of thinking in an unexpectedly modern setting: school shootings.
Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that "stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing ... faster than the intelligent, strong-minded" ones. Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin's work and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The Columbine killers made similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric Harris, wore a "Natural Selection" shirt on the day of the massacre. These are examples of how easily Darwin's writings can lead to very disturbed ways of thinking.
You believe that Darwin should continue to be taught in schools. But how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world? Wasn't his great breakthrough to show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?
I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights.
Are you concerned that your ideas will be trumpeted by the creationist movement?
Science is a big enough interest group. It can look after itself.
We understand now that eugenics was an illegitimate science, so why even worry about it today?
The thinking behind eugenics is still present. Many senior geneticists point to a genetically engineered future. As the technology for this falls into place, there has also been an explosion of the field of evolutionary psychology that tries to describe every element of human behavior as genetically determined. What we will begin to see is scientists arguing for the use of genetics to breed out certain behavioral traits from humanity.
Is it that you oppose artificial selection in principle, or that you feel scientists are still too far away from a full understanding of genetics to be making such decisions?
Who is going to make the value judgment of what is human enhancement and what makes a human better? I don't feel comfortable with such judgments being left to scientists.
All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?
What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13821
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Yes, He was a great biologist(not a politician and not a philosopher) whose idea of natural selection has seeded further most useful research and looks to go on doing so for a very long time.All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?
Because we think we have to be decent to disabled people because human rights if applied universally are good for all of us. If potential parents are warned in advance that any offspring will have some dire disease they can now choose not to have any babies, or there may, for all I know, be some way to eliminate the bad gene.We understand now that eugenics was an illegitimate science, so why even worry about it today
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
I appreciate the addition of this aspect of Darwinian ideology to the overall discussions currently in progress. What is often missing from the discussion is the "extrabiological" concepts obviously inherent to the theory of evolution but so often neglected due to negative conclusions better left hidden.
I believe the above quote is an example of the overall problem with Darwinism and is so clearly oxymoronic when taken in context with the idea of Darwinism in that those better equipped to develop survival mechanisms, are best able to survive. If in fact those existing mechanisms observable are those that evolved which commit to survival then any existing mechanism clearly contributes to human wellbeing.According to Sewell, evolution is scientifically undeniable, but its contribution to human well-being is unclear.
If those observable mechanisms which currently exist are in a "transitional" phase of development, and accorded Darwinian precepts, then no mechanism observable can be considered invalid to the evolutionary schema of development.
To validate the point of racism in evolutionary indoctrination is if one would happen to come across those illustrations on a timeline depicting the transitional phases of human evolutionary development one will note that those leading up to modern man have clearly African features, while modern man is typically depicted as Caucasian. Considering the commonly held belief that man has his origins in Africa as noted in the "Out of Africa" theory this is a clear suggestion of Darwin's contention suggesting European superiority. One could pose an argument suggesting the possibility that although those considered lesser beings (darker skinned humans) evolved while lighter skinned beings were blessed by God.
A natural conclusion of Darwinism involves the question of instinct. It is hardly logical to attribute concepts of morality as a necessity of survival when one considers that killing is a prevalent activity in the animal kingdom which one must consider an evolutionary necessity when observed in humans and not even consider that any instinct, at the very least, in a transitional phase to some altruistic trait, or not. Consider that ecological flux forces evolutionary change, if in fact the earth is currently in a transitional phase then any trait/characteristic currently observed may not only be necessary but may also progress this includes any current moral determinate such as murder and rape.
We can argue the effects of Darwinian ideology as the foundational support for secular reasoning in the abortion controversies and geriatric concerns. The emphasis on youth oriented dictates from WHO and the UN Human Rights Commission and Global Initiatives have its principles in Darwinian sciences such as, linguistics, behavioralism and social sciences.
Given the likelihood that Darwin theories, as a pure science, will eventually be proved insensate it would be best that we look to humanity as a superior purposeful creation.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
A biologist primarily studies living things and what makes them work, cell theory, gene theory, energy, homeostasis and evolution which Darwin invented before a need or scientific acceptance.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
-
- Posts: 207
- Joined: October 22nd, 2009, 2:49 pm
Darwin
I wonder if Darwin would have come to the same conclusions if he had the knowledge biologists and other scientists have today. It boggles my mind how Darwinists keep tweaking the theory to keep up with science. I suspect sooner or later science will uncover biological evidence that contradicts Darwinism to such an extent it cannot be simply explained away.
Actually, there are already things science cannot explain away such as those things you brought up in another post. I am still not buying the new Darwinistic view as to how DNA evolved.
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
The wellspring of European agnosticism at the time readily embraced evolution since it offered a rational not to take Biblical creation seriously.
While I get plenty of grief for my support of creationism once one takes the time to examine Darwinism closely one naturally sees the incredulity of the premise on their own. I don't even give the dates of the earth any validity, while I don't believe it to be 6,000 years old there is enough faults in the dating to make that science suspect itself.
For years the "RNA" world has been mainstreamed, but in just the last few months many biologists have begun to discount that. The cell is just too complex and specific to have been created by random chance. That fact coupled with awareness, consciousness and reason makes it even more unlikely.
The blind support given to the theory, and its forced indoctrination into impressionable minds is just another method by secularist to remove God from human consideration and is having a deleterious effect on civilization.
More to the topic. Darwinism is directly contrary to Biblical teachings and political philosophies supporting the equality of men.
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”
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.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
- Nick
- Posts: 71
- Joined: September 10th, 2009, 8:49 am
- Location: Yiwu City, China
Darwin did not define everything about evolutionary theory as we have now -- it has progressed quite a bit. The same can be said of Freud. We look back on Freud’s ideas, and we can see how some of them are laughable. But we have taken Freud’s ideas and progressed them much farther than he did. We have to remember that, before Freud, there was nothing called psychology, and he started it all. Today, we can stand on Freud’s shoulders and see a lot farther than he could, and we are lucky we had Freud to "get the ball rolling." The same can be said for Darwin.
Another big advantge of Darwinism is that is has given many people the courage to disagree with parts of church dogma that they do not agree with. Darwinism has gone a long way in encouraging open-mindedness and questioning ideas that do not make sense. It has also encouraged people to take it to the next step, which is to stand up to suffocating forms of evangelicalism. For this, we are eternally grateful to people like Darwin.
- pjkeeley
- Posts: 695
- Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am
Thus, no one can escape responsibility for their actions by saying that Darwinism justifies them; it doesn't. It would be like using the alphabet as a justification for forcibly kicking people out of their homes and reassigning them land based on the alphabetical order of their surnames. Yes, the alphabet is an ordered system, and that order is useful for arranging items for easy reference, but the alphabet itself doesn't tell us we should arrange anything alphabetically, let alone people. Whatever justification is used (I suppose since the purpose of alphabetical order is to make it easier to find things I'm sure it would probably be easier to find people if they lived in alphabetical order), that justification comes from the mind of the perpetrators, not from the alphabet or from Darwinism or gravity or whatever.
I'll give another example though I am probably labouring the point: psychologists have given descriptive accounts of paedophilia which reference the fact that people who have been sexually abused as children are more likely to be abusers as adults. That is strictly a descriptive account, not a normative account. It doesn't instruct paedophilia. It doesn't give paedophiles a reason to sexually abuse children. So a judge would be moronic to blame psychologists if a paedophile said he had read a psychologist's book and used it as a justification.
The bottom line is this: atrocities are atrocities, theories are theories. Theories are not atrocities. Of course, as I have shown, if the theory is normative (that is, if it is about why you should do something), it could quite rightly be considered dangerous in the wrong hands, especially if it instructs the carrying out of atrocities, like Hitler's race theories in Mein Kampf. If the theory is descriptive, as Darwinism is, then it doesn't give you any reason to do anything, let alone carry out atrocities.
- Nick
- Posts: 71
- Joined: September 10th, 2009, 8:49 am
- Location: Yiwu City, China
I also agree with you that Darwinism is not a racist theory. I guess Juice and I just have to agree to disagree on this one.
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
Today virtually all of Freud's ideas and concepts have been refuted. We have strong evidence of the failures of Marxist ideologies, and in the end Darwinism will follow suit.
Worth considering is the impact on organized religion these three men have had. Fundamental to the new world paradigm is the influence of these men on global initiatives starting with UNESCO. As I have stated it may be culture chic not to believe in God but more insidious than any religion is the slight of hand indoctrination many so willing accept when attached to the names of science.
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
-
- Posts: 207
- Joined: October 22nd, 2009, 2:49 pm
Darwinism
Darwinism does not give a damn about evolvement of the spirit and has not progressed much at all since its' introduction to the world, except as necessary to be considered relevant. Some believe that Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism in order to justify genocide. Sir Arthur Keith, himself an atheistic evolutionist wrote, "The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice."
I agree with pjkeeley when he says "it is fair to discuss the ways in which Darwinism has been misused as a justification for evil." I also agree with him that we should not blame Darwinism for the vile actions of some Darwinists any more than we should blame Christianity for the vile actions of some Christians. Where we might disagree is that I believe the teachings of Christianity, when properly acted upon, promote growth of the spirit whereas Darwinism promotes survival of the fittest.
If man has indeed evolved, I believe he has evolved physically and spiritually as descendents from a direct line of other men. Evolution within the species makes sense. Has anybody considered this approach?
- Nick
- Posts: 71
- Joined: September 10th, 2009, 8:49 am
- Location: Yiwu City, China
I was hoping that we could agree to disagree on this one. I can see that it is not going to happen. The first step in any discussion is a respect for the other person's beliefs.
~~~
JPhillips, you said,
"Darwinism does not give a damn about evolvement of the spirit..."
--> That was never part of his theory, nor did he plan it to be. He saw turtles or whatever on two nearby islands that looked different, and he strived to explain why they looked different. Do you think he was wrong in doing so? (I don't) Should we not ask questions about why turtles look different? Should today's Darwinists "give a damn about evolvement of the spirit" before looking at a turtle?
"Where we might disagree is that I believe the teachings of Christianity, when properly acted upon, promote growth of the spirit whereas Darwinism promotes survival of the fittest."
--> It could also be said that survival of the fittest is part of the growth of the spirit. I certainly think so -- it is an important part of my belief system, and I believe very strongly that we are trying to evolve to a higher level of spirituality.
"If man has indeed evolved, I believe he has evolved physically and spiritually from has descended from a direct line of other men."
--> I believe in intellectual, physical, and spiritual evolution. I see the three as going along hand in hand, and being quite supportive of each other.
- Juice
- Posts: 1996
- Joined: May 8th, 2009, 10:24 pm
From Decent of man:
“It appears as if the posterior molar or wisdom-teeth were tending to become rudimentary in the more civilised races of man. These teeth are rather smaller than the other molars, as is likewise the case with the corresponding teeth in the chimpanzee and orang; and they have only two separate fangs. … In the Melanian races, on the other hand, the wisdom-teeth are usually furnished with three separate fangs, and are generally sound; they also differ from the other molars in size, less than in the Caucasian races.
“The above view of the origin and nature of the moral sense, which tells us what we ought to do, and of the conscience which reproves us if we disobey it, accords well with what we see of the early and undeveloped condition of this faculty in mankind…. A North-American Indian is well pleased with himself, and is honoured by others, when he scalps a man of another tribe; and a Dyak cuts off the head of an unoffending person, and dries it as a trophy. … With respect to savages, Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the negroes of West Africa often commit suicide. It is well known how common it was amongst the miserable aborigines of South America after the Spanish conquest. … It has been recorded that an Indian Thug conscientiously regretted that he had not robbed and strangled as many travellers as did his father before him. In a rude state of civilisation the robbery of strangers is, indeed, generally considered as honourable.”
While it may be argued that in Darwin's day peoples attitudes on race were not sophisticated and any advantage to support that thinking would have been prejudiced that way. What I am confused by is Darwin's apparent departure from the science of his theories to these unscientific observations, and what could have necessitated them.“[Flinders Island], situated between Tasmania and Australia, is forty miles long, and from twelve to eighteen miles broad: it seems healthy, and the natives were well treated. Nevertheless, they suffered greatly in health….With respect to the cause of this extraordinary state of things, Dr. Story remarks that death followed the attempts to civilise the natives.” [--Obviously the problem was trying to civilize these barbarians!]
I apologize if I showed any disrespect to anyone. It was not my intent. But I would be curious to know if anyone has actually read "Descent of Man".
An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason.
C. S. Lewis
Fight the illusion!
-
- Posts: 207
- Joined: October 22nd, 2009, 2:49 pm
Here are some quotes from Charles Darwin himself:"Our own generation has lived to see the inevitable result of evolutionary teaching—the result that Sedgwick foresaw as soon as he had read the Origin. Mussolini’s attitude was completely dominated by evolution. In public utterances, he repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords while he mocked at perpetual peace, lest it hinder the evolutionary process. In Germany, it was the same. Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching—probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas, quite undisguised, lie at the basis of all that is the worst in Mein Kamp and his public speeches."— R.E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.
Many races, some of which differ so much from each other, that they have often been ranked by naturalists as distinct species.
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... The break between men and his nearest allies will then be wider.
[Man] has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and the European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered as good and true species.
For my part I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey, who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumph his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs – as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices, practices infanticide without remorse, treats his wives like slaves, knows no decency, and is haunted by the grossest superstitions.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023