Today on Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed author and historian Eric Foner, who is promoting his new book Forever Free: The Story of Emancipation and Reconstruction. He did not sound like he had a specific axe to grind (liberal or conservative), and his interview (audio posted later today) was very informative. He talked about the reconstruction era after the American Civil War, between about 1865 and 1877. I learned the following:
- Advances by blacks in the south were significant during this time, when in fact, 2 of the 5 black federal senators (that’s *ever* in the U.S.) served, and over 1200 blacks served in elected office.
- President Jackson tried to veto two of the most significant civil rights bills, but his veto was overridden by 2/3 votes in Congress.
- Many of the advances for blacks during reconstruction were actually lost during the 1890’s and early 1900’s due to racist legislation like the Jim Crow laws.
What I found really interesting about the last point is that the author mentioned the many ideological forces pushing back civil rights. One of them was Social Darwinism! Despite evolutionists’ pleading that Darwin never meant such a thing, the consequences of evolutionary theory are self-evident.
This does not prove that evolution is wrong or bad, but it does support the contention that evolution is wrong because it can not be integrated with other disciplines of truth (like social justice or the design of civil goverment or Christianity ;), but can be integrated with such ideas as Social Darwinism and atheism. It’s ease of integration with these bogus systems of thought makes me suspect it is also bogus.
“Darwinism” as a concept, makes zero claims about ethics. And ethical statements, in general, make zero claims about truth. Rape, for example, is an effective method for spreading genes, and it certainly exists in nature. Nobody is suggesting, though, that rape is somehow a positive force, or that it’s an ethical or desired practice. And citing the lack of ethics in rape is not even close to a reason to suggest that rape does not exist.
Whether or not things fit into your curious little category of “disciplines of truth” does not have any relevence on whether or not they actually are true.
Just to be clear: I’m in no way advocating anything resembling “social darwinism”. I just defending the concept of natural selection against the bizarre connection you’ve made between this topic and evolution.
I am not saying that evolutionists recommend Social Darwinism. Nor am I saying that evolution itself says anything directly about other disciplines.
However, I do believe that the affects of the theory, including ripples into other disciplines of *knowledge* (since you have a problem with the word “truth”) should be considered.
I posit that every discipline of knowledge eventually dovetails with others, since all reality is actually a connected whole, not disparate in the way that we like to analyze things. The fact that evolution’s social, religious, ethical, and philosophic analogs, intended or not, are unsavory, leads me to conclude that evolution itself may be equally untrue or unsavory.
Do you find this reasoning bizarre and “curious”? I find it compelling, but perhaps I need to delve more into epistemology and philosophy of science to prove my point – by quoting greater thinkers than myself.
Seeker,
Lenin proposed socialism – Stalin, Mao, Castro, others ruined socialism. Thus, socialism isn’t worth talking about!
Darwin proposed evolution – racists ruined evolution. Thus, evolution isn’t worth talking about.
The Ten Commandments say “Love Thy Neighbor” – Seeker hates his gay neighbors. Thus, the Ten Commandments aren’t worth talking about.
Ideas themselves don’t lose value based on their occaisonally horrible interpretations. In other words, evolution isn’t dismissed simply because, for a time, it was used to justify particularly evil ends.
Actually, I think your examples prove my point – Lenin didn’t intend the horrors of Stalin et al, but his erroneous philosophy inevitably led to such applications and uses because it was erronenous, even if well intentioned!
Darwin’s theory, though well intended, is perfectly suited for eugenic and racist dogma, as well as social darwinism, precisely because it is bogus, not just because it was abused.
Your quote of Love thy Neighbor is taken in exclusion to all of its other context (a classic logical fallacy), which include turning from sin and imploring others to do so, as well as commands to rebuke hypocrites. Your non-sequitur on the commandments makes no sense at all.
And my point is that all reality is connected, and no theory stands in isolation to the remainder of knowledge. If it can not be integrated with other ideas we hold true, but seems much more easily integrated with ideas we hold repugnant, it is likely that the theory is also repugnant and untrue.
And despite Darwin’s “innocence” in the matter, if he or we are ignorant of the ramifications of our ideas, or fail to claim knowledge about how they will be used, we truly are ignorant.
Ideas have consequences that should not be ignored – rather, they should be explored as a reflection of the content and quality of our ideas.
As an example, seeing mankind as special and made in the image of God leads us to value human life over animal life.
Evolutionary thinking, however, leads us to believe that the two are probably of equal value – that we are just animals, and not even “higher” animals at that.
Ideas have consequences.
Good thing that the Bible has never been used to justify evil ends Seeker. Like slavery. Oh wait – those people weren’t “real” Christians, so it’s a logical fallacy. Again, you’re a hypocrite. Stop being a hypocrite.
You make a good point, that any ideology can be twisted to support another bad ideology. That alone does not incriminate an ideology.
But if an ideology is consistently and easily integrated with a more heinous one, without much twising, then I’d say there is a relationship there. Evolution doesn’t have to be twisted to be related to Social Darwinism – it just needs to be applied directly to public policy.
Slavery is not justified in the scriptures (though not specifically condemned either). However, the fact that xianity is singlehandedly responsible for pioneering and leading the Abolitionist movement in the west, starting with Wm. Wilberforce in Britian, and followed by MLK Jr. (a Baptist minister) in the US makes your example a weak one at best.
Unfortunately for your thesis, “social Darwinism” was urged by Herbert Spencer some years prior to Darwin’s publishing the theory of evolution. Worse for your thesis, Darwin and his family were opposed to racism and provided the economic heft (using the significant Wedgewood family fortune) to outlaw slavery in Britain. Darwin pointed out that our being related to all other humans meant we are all brothers. In short, evolution refutes racist claims (as indeed modern science has clearly demonstrated we are one human race with variable skin color).
Especially in America racism was increasingly justified on Biblical foundations after 1820. Nathan Bedford Forrest founded the Ku Klux Klan on the idea that the Bible justified white superiority. While racism was unfortunately common and open, the resurgance of evolution theory after 1930 was tied rather directly to a rejection of racism.
Christianity wasn’t “singlehandedly” responsible for an end to slavery. It was good that a few Christians helped lead the fight. It is not good that some Christians still resist.
Oh, and President Jackson had been dead for nearly 30 years by the end of the Civil War. I think you meant President Andrew Johnson, didn’t you?
1. thanks for the correction on the president
2. You are correct, however, that many so-called xians justified slavery as part of the "curse of Ham", and believed that Africans were Ham's descendants.
3. Despite the fact that the OT allows slavery, it has very specific commands to not be cruel or ruthless, and there are provisions for liberation of slaves. However, even in the NT, slavery is accepted as a human norm – it is neither condemned nor condoned, but it again commands kindness. The lack of condeming slavery on the Apostle Paul's part, however, "may not have been out of an approval of slavery, but rather a fear that the Christian movement will be presented as anti-social and disruptive to the imperial status-quo. This fear seems particularly strong in the Pastoral epistles."
However, xian thought and practice has led to abolition.
4. Actually, in all of recorded history, xians are pretty much the only ones who have pioneered abolition. In every country in the west, the movement was led by xians. Just check out the wikipedia page on abolition and you will see that in England, France, and America, without exception, abolition was led by evangelical xians.
Not only that, check out the list of notable abolitionists (about 50 of them). Almost without excpetion, they are preachers or evangelicals. Where are all your precious, enlightened humanists? Not there. Why?
WHo knows. Maybe because their subjective morlism isn't really good at discerning wrong from right. In any case, the best they can claim is that they followed the evangelicals. I mean, even MLK was a Baptist minister!
In addition, the canard that xianity supports slavery is nonsense – sure, people tried to twist the scriptures to justify it, but not evangelicals, nor Catholics. Stark's book <a href"http://www.wholereason.com/2005/10/the_biblical_or.html" rel="nofollow">To the Glory of God records that as early as the 7th century, xians were calling for abolition, and that three successive popes and St. Augustine are on record in the 13th century as being against slavery as well.
Now, Islam sure isn't against it – I mean, Mohammed bought and sold slaves. What a man of God! I guess someone has to serve you while you're using all your energy on jihads, subjugating the pagans. But I digress.
5. Darwin may have been personally against slavery, but remember, he had studied xian theology, and what we know as Darwinism today is probably not what he had in mind. His views on slavery were probably grounded in his xianity, not his theory.
The fact is, despite his ideas on slavery, Social Darwinism is a natural and direct application of his ideas to society. And the liberal historian whose book I mentioned was not trying to attack Darwinism – he was merely stating the historical fact that Social Darwinism WAS part of pushing back civil rights during the post-reconstruction period. And I said, "no surprise."
Oh, and regarding “social darwinism” preceding origin of the species, while this is technically correct, the relationship between them is very clear – one of the main promoters of what has come to be known as social darwinism was Thomas Malthus, whose writings are known as a primary influcence on Darwin. So they are not unrelated.
And eugenics is a direct descendant of evolutionary thought. Face it – evolution is bankrupt, and so are its analogs and ideological relatives.
You are distressed when someone commits a logical fallacy, and yet your whole argument is based on the naturalistic fallacy – the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But “is” does not imply “ought.” Evolution only tells how things are; it does not say how they should be.