Darwinists hate the common association of their pet theory with eugenics, not to mention it’s role in giving scientific validation to Nazi eugenics. But the historical connections are unavoidable. (BTW, the same goes for the eugenic roots of the murderous Planned Parenthood).
Take, for example, the textbook that gave rise to the infamous Scopes trial, A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (1914). This textbook that led to allowing the teaching of evolution as science was also blatantly racist.
In the post Uncivic Biology, the Discovery Institute uncovers yet another dirty little secret in the past of Darwinian apologies.
Hovannisian observes:
George William Hunter’s A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems(1914) was the book that sparked the controversy. Condemned as heretical in 1925, today it would seem to be a manual for enlightenment’s battle against religion’s perceived mysticism. Yet if John Scopes were to teach the very same Civic Biology in a modern classroom, he would probably be put on trial again. Because buried under the dust of history is the fact that this progressive, pro-evolution text was also quite racist.
“At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.”
Hovannisian notes:
Hunter was also a proponent of eugenics. “[T]he science of being well born,” his text instructed, is an imperative for sophisticated society. “When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand,” he wrote, arguing that tuberculosis, epilepsy, and even “feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity.” “If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading,” Hunter lamented in Civic Biology.“Humanity will not allow this but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.”[emphasis mine]
You should read the entire post, and the Weekly Standard article on which it is based, A Book for No Seasons: the forgotten aspects of John Scopes’ famous biology textbook.
Of course, some will object that this does not make Darwinism racist, nor Darwinists, which I would of course agree with. So what DOES this mean? Mostly, it means that the logical association of Darwinistic thinking and eugenics is a lot stronger than Darwinists like to admit, and history shows that quite clearly. This strong association should make us skeptical of Darwinism’s value as an idea, because it translates into other disciplines so poorly, or with such aweful ethical and moral implications.
And this is especially important in light of some evolutionists’ desire to expand evolution’s explanatory power to areas outside of biology, if not to all of life.
It's interesting how Christians object when I or others bring up the historical abuses associated with their religion (e.g., witch-hunts, the Inquisition, forced conversions, sectarian persecution and war, the persecution of homosexuals, etc., ad infinitum), and yet they feel free to do the same with something like evolutionary theory and "Darwinism." You can't have it both ways, seeker: you can't just brush off Christian evils while holding scientific abuses to an extreme standard. Isn't it possible that both are the result of bad people doing bad things for bad reasons? Of course, the double-standard is one of your favorite tactics, so I shouldn't be surprised.
You can't have it both ways, seeker: you can't just brush off Christian evils while holding scientific abuses to an extreme standard.
This is an oversimplification, but I agree that neither of us can have it both ways. The problem here, as I see it, has two components.
One is, what are the logical extensions of a theory, and second, how has it been abused or ignored while the name of the theory was used?
For many so-called Christian atrocities, there are loopholes for Christians to deny culpability, as discussed in Atheist Atrocities. For example:
– Any Catholic atrocities, esp. those late in the Middle Ages, can be denied by Protestants because they claim (rightly) that the Catholic church was corrupt and not following the teachings of scripture. Not only that, they are on record as persecuting those Protestants considered genuine Christians, even before the Reformation.
– Many wars attributed to religion are not religious in nature – "Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power…. Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans [for example]"
– The big two atrocities, the Crusades and the Inquisition, can both be explained away fairly convincingly – the first, as a justified political response to 400 years of Muslim aggression, and the latter, as human abuses common to the time, and protested by the Catholic popes. Most of the abuses, like Jewish extermination, were not called for by the Church, but a result of the anti-semitism of the times, the prodding of the Spanish monarchy, and an unfortunate mutation into a sort of "if you are not for us you are against us" mentality.
And while Christians SHOULD own the abuses in their history to some extent, this does not lessen the weight of the arguments against Darwinism and it's clear logical and historical connections to eugenics. In one sense, you are right – if Christians want to question Darwinism based on its history, Darwinists may do the same with Christianity.
But if Darwinists want to use this line of argument against Christianity, then they should ALSO admit it as a valid attack on their own world view, especially if the abuses were not merely based on a misunderstanding of Darwinism, but on a logical extension of the theory, which is what I am alleging.
Eugenics was practiced by the Spartans 2000 years before Darwin was born. They would commit infanticide. Babies who were deemed weak were thrown off a cliff. At least get your facts straight. I'm just keeping you honest Seeker.
As I said, Darwinism gave eugenics a modern, scientific undergirding, one not lost on either Darwin, his eugenics-promoting cousin, or Hitler's Nazis.
I never claimed that Darwinism created eugenics.
"Mostly, it means that the logical association of Darwinistic thinking and eugenics…"
So, everyone replace "Darwinistic" with "Spartan." Don't let Seeker lie to you.
seeker has ulterior motives for attacking "Darwinism" in this vein: it is a serious challenge to Christianist creationism. Evolutionary theory has little to do with Social Darwinism, which is a later misapplication of science for political purposes. One could also make the argument that Christianity, with its authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, and exclusivity, also invites the manifold social abuses (both RC and Protestant) we have seen throughout history. When Jesus claims he is the only way to God he sounds like a modern-day Islamist claiming his religion is the only way to God: how much violence and suffering has come from these absurd claims?
seeker has ulterior motives for attacking "Darwinism" in this vein: it is a serious challenge to Christianist creationism.
Ad hominem attacks about my motives are interesting, but not logic. You may have less than honorable motives for believing in evolution. But that's really a side issue.
Perhaps you would rather comment on the historical and logical links between Darwinism and eugenics. I think the logic previously presented for the role of Darwinism in Nazism is compelling, if not irrefutable.
Even better, perhaps you can comment on the FACTS that I present about the easy and obvious integration of Darwinism and eugenics in the biology textbook involved with the Scopes trial. How is it that such ideas are mentioned to commonly together at that time?
Okay, then, how about the role Christianity played in European anti-semitism which culminated in the Holocaust? There's also the historic role Christianity played in the demonization of homosexuals which culminated in the gay Holocaust in Germany?
So, I gather you AGREE that Darwinism and racism were intertwined in the book, yes?
Regarding Christianity's role in anti-semitism, I remark:
– Perhaps you can document Christianity's role in anti-semitism in Europe. I'm not saying it did not exist, only that I would need more specific claims.
– I also note that while the book above is just one obvious combining of Darwinism and racism, I am not aware of any anti-semitic Christian texts, though you might find some among the more corrupted Catholic Pope's, I'm not sure. My point is that Darwinism and racism were kissing cousins in their youth, while anti-semitism has not really ever been part of Christian doctrine, and it expressly teaches against it, while Darwinism – well, it can't teach against it because eugenics fits so nicely into it's explanations.
– Homosexuality is not demonized any more than other sexual sins. Unfortunately, the Nazi's, using Darwinist eugenics, sought to eliminate all sickness from the human race by extermination. And while they rightly identified homosexuality as a sickness, as well as other sicknesses, they were mistaken in both their anti-semitism, and in their methods of eliminating sickness from the human race.
So, I gather you AGREE that Darwinism and racism were intertwined in the book, yes?
Maybe, I haven't read the book in question. However, I have to point out that this book was written – when? – the 1920's or 30's? And it was one textbook, and not the consensus of the entire scientific community. My point is that otherwise true and good science can be misused by those with a political agenda (which was refuted). You, on the other hand, just swallow it as representative of the entirety of the scientific community's reasoning, ignoring any other evidence. I put it to you that the same can be done with Christianity: ignore anything that is good about it and highlight the bad and perverse uses to which it has been put. I guess it just depends on whose ox is gored.
– Perhaps you can document Christianity's role in anti-semitism in Europe. I'm not saying it did not exist, only that I would need more specific claims.
I see. Now I have to write a research paper including citations before you will believe me? It's well known that Christianity was responsible for the most vicious acts of anti-semitism throughout European history: the Inquisition, the expulsion of the Jews from Spain after Christians took over from the Muslims (the Jews lived peaceably under Spanish Islam), the numerous violent pogroms undertaken by Christians at the instigation of their church at the drop of a hat (during plagues, Easter, etc.), the forced conversions, the anathema hurled at them by Luther, and so on. Anyone with even a smattering of historical knowledge has an awareness of this.
I am not aware of any anti-semitic Christian texts…
Try the New Testament.
You sound just like a Nazi with your "sickness" rhetoric. I simply refuse to comment on it.
And it was one textbook, and not the consensus of the entire scientific community.
What makes you say that? I don't remember hearing about anyone complaining about this textbook.
otherwise true and good science can be misused by those with a political agenda
Agreed.
You, on the other hand, just swallow it as representative of the entirety of the scientific community's reasoning, ignoring any other evidence.
Not so. In fact, I have presented other historical associations between Darwinism and eugenics and racism. What OTHER (historical) facts are you talking about? Sure, modern Darwinist's eschew racism, though some see the obvious implications of his theory and how it supports eugenics, even today.
It's well known that Christianity was responsible for the most vicious acts of anti-semitism throughout European history:
I think you are a victim of revisionist history. You are also confusing political movements with Chrsitianity, and confusing the teachings of the faith with those who called themselves Christian errantly.
I am not aware of any anti-semitic Christian texts…Try the New Testament.
Have you read the NT? Would you like to cite an anti-semitic reference? In point of fact, you can probably find anti-gentile references, since the NT is markedly Jewish in origin, focus, and tone.
And one more thing. How likely is it that an idea got into a textbook, which is really just a compendium of accepted information, if the scientific community didn't buy into it?
I’m sure many texts from that time period are racist. Including protestant sermons.
That’s what people believed then. Lots of them. They were wrong, and most of us have since learned better.
Evolution is simply a useful theory that has substantial predictive power. That’s what science relies upon for progress: theories that, when tested, and when used as the basis for later theories, help successfully predict outcomes.
One makes a theory based on observation, constructs a test to measure that theory’s predicted results as accurately as possible, and measures the resulting evidence. That’s how the scientific method works.
Responsible scientist do their best to exclude or compensate for bias, but some bias is always present.
The science of the time, and the bias in the minds of the scientists of the time, combined to produce in some thinkers what seemed a logical progression from evolutionary theory to the practices of eugenics and racism.
In fact, if they understood evolution better, they would have steered clear of eugenics and racism. Evolutionary theory holds that random mutations are successively tested in the real world, with the survival of the fittest. Rinse, repeat, improve.
But if you artificially terminate some mutations, as eugenics would have us do, you eliminate entire branches of future potential that can provide unimagined benefits.
We are already having this problem today in agriculture. We artificially promoted the proliferation of specific mutations in the plant and animal kingdom, and now we have to do all kinds of shenanigans to protect these artificially promoted (in some cases, engineered) strains. Meanwhile, we continue to discover new benefits of species that were previously undiscovered.
The guys who wrote that book, and others like them, were wrong. Maybe evil. But that doesn’t mean that the theory of evolution leads inescapably to evil, or even that it’s not worth using (and, thereby, testing) in further scientific study.