Evolution is antithetical to racism

That's because it has been a topic of discussion among eminent evolutionists since its inception. As you will see, the theory of evolution itself seems to deliberately evolve with the spirit of the times. In other words, if racism is an acceptable belief by today's standards, then evolution explains why it is justified in coming to that rationale. If racism is looked upon negatively, then evolution has an explanation for that too-- so that no matter what comes about, the theory will always be protected-- even by the very arguments it once used to counter the positions they now defend.

From the chief himself:

“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.

“Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.” -Charles Darwin; from his book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex

And then from Thomas Huxley, the enormous early supported of Darwin's work, known candidly as "Darwmin's Bulldog, said,

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. "

Then we have John Tyndall:

"The human brain is the organized register of infinitely numerous experiences received during the evolution of life, or rather during the evolution of that series of organisms through which the human organism has been reached. … Thus it happens that the European inherits from twenty to thirty cubic inches more of brain than the Papuan. Thus it happens that faculties, as of music, which scarcely exist in some inferior races, become congenital in superior ones. Thus it happens that out of savages unable to count up to the number of their fingers, and speaking a language containing only nouns and verbs, arise at length our Newtons and Shakespeares.”

Source

You can read the rest of them on your own. The point being, there is sufficient reason to at least think critically about the socioethical concerns that are directly attached to the theory of evolution.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that the assertions you've heard over the years aren't fabrications, nor is racism the antithesis of evolution. The theory has proven to be so flexible that a view defended in the beginning can now be vehemently denied.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed italics

I understood your premise just fine. I simply misspoke. Excuse me all over the place.

There is more evidence of the malleability of the theory. In its early years, there is, without question, a sense of general direction within the theory-- from lower to higher, less evolved to more evolved, less suitably adapted to more highly adapted, less autonomy to more autonomy, etc.

"Seen in retrospect, evolution as a whole doubtless had a general direction, from simple to complex, from dependence on to relative independence of the environment, to greater and greater autonomy of individuals, greater and greater development of sense organs and nervous systems conveying and processing information about the state of the organism's surroundings, and finally greater and greater consciousness. You can call this direction progress or by some other name." -Theodosius Dobzhansky

This is more than evident reading the early writers of evolutionary theory. Approximately 30-40 years ago this belief began to, itself, evolve. Spearheaded by certain eminent figures like Margulis, Gould, Dawkins, etc, there was a new belief that life was not more evolved or less evolved-- just, evolved. And this bait and switch exists over its social and moral implications.

"Life is organization. From prokaryotic cells, eukaryotic cells, tissues, and organs, to plants and animals, families, communities, ecosystems, and living planets, life is organization, at every scale. The evolution of life is the increase of biological organization, if it is anything. Clearly, if life originates and makes evolutionary progress without organizing input from outside, then something has organized itself. Logical entropy in a closed system has decreased. This is the violation that people are getting at, when they say that life violates the second law of thermodynamics. This violation, the decrease of logical entropy in a closed system, must happen continually in the darwinian account of evolutionary progress.Most darwinists just ignore this staggering problem." -Brig Klyce

To be quote mining, I have to be using quotes taken out of context. I notice that you only charge non-evolutionists with the charge of quote mining, usually as a non-sequitur to detract from the argument.

Using the fact that the quotes are over 100 years old is a strawman, since I very clearly made the argument that evolutionists once asserted it.

Then do so. See, you think that when I bring in to question evolutionary theory, that I'm bringing you, personally, in to that same disrepute. I assume that you have your own mind and don't blindly follow every single aspect that some evolutionist purported.

Therefore, bringing up some creationist which misrepresented an issue means nothing to me, because I'm not that person, nor is that person me.

Deal with the issue. There is a legitimate basis for questioning the bait and switch of evolutionary theory, as science is now pandering to political correctness, rather than simply following the evidence wherever it may lead.

Thus the theory will always be protected, just as I said. Lets think about it objectively. If one race of mankind existed before another, and natural selection works to improve upon the whole of nature, then surely one race really would be less evolved than another.

Heck, Darwin used terms like "descending and ascending" all the time as a basis for proving that life has a general direction.

I really see no way of getting around that, if the ToE were true as it is defined currently. Therefore, I see the argument that racism has evolutionary ties to at least be suspect, if nothing else. But then again, if it were true, you can't very well blame nature for developing something as malicious. Since you can't view nature as malicious, why defend it in such a way that removes its social implications? Clearly there are deeper motives than mere science at work, in which case, we have leapt from science right in to personal interest.

If a theologian referred to any man as a "savage," I doubt very much that you would be defending him in the same manner that you glibly defend Mr. Darwin here. You'd likely be more inclined to skewer , tar, and feather him, then hang him out to dry as irrefutable proof that theology is inherently racist.

THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE

"The evolution of man is not only a guess, but a very wild one; and it is totally unsupported by any convincing arguments. It can be mathematically demonstrated to be an impossible theory. Every proof of the unity of the human race in the days of Adam or Noah shatters the theory of the evolution of man. If the evolution of the human race be true, there must have been, hundreds of thousands of years ago, a great multitude of heads of the race, in many parts of the earth, without one common language or religion. The present population of the globe proves that mankind must have descended from one pair who lived not earlier than the time of Noah. The unity of languages also proves one common head about the same time. Certain beliefs and customs, common to various religions, point to one original God-given religion in historic time, in contrast to the evolution idea of many religions invented by ape-men in millions of years. The history of the world and the migration of nations point to one locality where the human race began in times not more remote, and show that man was created in a civilized state, and, therefore, never was a brute. If evolution were true, there would have been many billion times as many human beings as now exist, a great multitude of invented languages with little or no similarity, a vast number of invented religions with little, if anything, in common. Even the sciences invented and exploited by evolutionists, the Mendelian Inheritance Law and Biometry, also prove evolution impossible. The unity of mankind is also conclusively shown by the fact that all races interbreed, the most certain test of every species." -William Williams, circa 1928

I guess his beliefs were uncommon. It would do more to advance your assertion by providing unequivocal evidence as I have been doing.

More than that, attempting to turn the argument around creation is a grasping at straws, because whether or not early creationists were racists wouldn't detract from the argument that many, if not most, evolutionists undeniably were.

And apparently you have now given creationists a get-out-of-jail-free card in the event that some were. All they have to do is invoke the same exonerating message you gave for Darwinists.

Your premise doesn't follow. Darwin refers to other human beings as less evolved, and thus engendering some kind of clear of progress. The tacit assertion is that he is more highly evolved than they.

You seem to agree that this is an antiquated portion of the theory. But I don't see how it could be, since, if evolution is true, there really is a clear sense of advancement. Do you really disagree with that? Isn't the goal of man to progress? (Towards what is anybody's guess) But the point is that whether they outwardly deny progress is the unintended goal of life, the underlying message is easily read beween the lines.

I'm not asserting that evolution is a malicious theory propagated to point out character flaws in lesser beings. Some creationists do that. I'm not one of them. I'm simply stating that I agree that, at the very least, a legitimate concern is not unfounded. I think evolutionists need to think carefully about the theory as it relates to socioethical questions.

Certainly the theory has flexed. Darwin believed that features developed by exercise are inherited. Such as, my father working out before I was born would make me more inclined to be just as strong when I came of age-- which would also mean that if he got his arms chopped off before I was born, I ran the risk of being limbless too. Of course, that's preposterous.

But, really, all of this is off topic. I would like to focus on why the theory can justifiably be brought into question as far as it relates to racist ideologies.

Yes, but evolutionists directly received their information about such racist tendencies from Darwin himself. No one can such a thing about Jesus.

I understand the zeitgeist if the time. I'm not saying that if you are an evolutionist that you automatically become a racist by virtue of association. I'm simply in agreement that questioning the theory on the pretense that it will invariably lead to racist sentiments is something to consider.

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Edit to add tidbit of info

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos

Klyce listed his reference sources, and I believe it was Lithodid-Man that posted it.

Right. I then posted sources, coming straight form the top, that pointed out how eminent evolutionists justified racism in their own minds. Modulous then countered with justifying how and why it is all ineffectual. Thus, whatever happens, the theory will always have some perennial scapegoat to rescue it.

If Darwin wrongly concluded what he did then, then what is saying that the current paradigm will not be proven demonstrably wrong in the near future?

Sure you do. Everyone does. Calling someone a simian is not some endearing term for them. The allusion is, you're stupid. If they say that you have the intelligence of an amoeba, you aren't very well going to assume that its a compliment, are you?

There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.

Early Darwinists asserted that negros, south pacific islanders, and aborigines were lesser men precariously in limbo between simian and man.

I'm sure you know very well that they were saying was something far more pernicious than just noticing the differences. Tyndall stated that these aboriginal men could barely count to five and had no real concept of music, whereas he, being a European, was more highly developed than his halfling counterparts.

If the oldest known human bones are said to be found in Ethiopia, and latter fossilizations of man places them in Europe, you make the deduction. Is that not indicative of a European developing after the African?

I'm not saying everyone agrees with this. I would say that the majority most likely do not. What I am saying is, of those that do, isn't that the logical deduction they made in order to justify it?

Well, I certainly agree. And you and I are probably in agreement that different races come by way of mutation, isolation, and selective breeding that end up fixing specific traits to a certain population. There is nothing wrong with that because its completely a natural occurrence.

Darwinists, though, certainly didn't see it that way. And I'd be curious to know how many of their modern contemporaries secretly harbor these taboo thoughts.

Well, supposing that the ToE were entirely true, of course you can't blame nature for being nature. That's like blaming a tree for growing in an awkward direction from the rest in the forest, or a baboon being considered bad for having been born with a congenital heart defect.

I'm not even entertaining those notions. I'm simply saying that many people have interpreted Darwin's notions in linear terms. I don't think its accidental. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, etc all used Darwinism as a basis for believing that their race was the most advanced. You wouldn't believe that's purely coincidental that mass confusion effected the lot of them, do you? It seems they got their ideologies right out of the scientific annals of Darwin.

You may say in defense, "yeah, but you can't blame Darwin for coming to that conclusion anymore than you could blame Jesus for someone coming to wrong-headed conclusions from a bizarre interpretation of the Bible. The difference is, Darwin himself believed in that. Darwin wrote about it. And moreover, he spoke of evolution always in these linear terms that, today, no longer apply.

Instead, the general fascination is not say someone is bad or good-- just different.

No one is more evolved or less evolved-- just evolved.

No one is smarter or less smart-- just different.

Well, that's all a little to PC to be accurate. I suspect they changed their tune because they understood quite well the social implications of maintaining a totally Darwinistic framework. Now its a feau pax

Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add

What on earth are you talking about? All of the quotes are taken as excerpts from books or publications. I assume you would agree that Darwin wrote at length about how such things come about. You aren't seriously going to deny that Darwin talked about descent and ascent as it relates to the progress of organisms, are you? That much is transparently obvious.

You can call a steaming pile of dung pumpkin pie if you want to, and then call everyone else crazy for not understanding that pumpkin pie and dung are the same thing, but you won't make any allies in the process.

Then consider this quote as well:

"The essential point is that there are 10,000,000 Negroes here now and that the proportion of mulattos to a thousand blacks has increased with alarming rapidity since 1850.

According to all evidence available, then, American intelligence is declining, and will proceed with an accelerating rate as the racial admixture becomes more and more extensive. The decline of American intelligence will be more rapid than the decline of intelligence of European national groups, owing to the presence here of the Negro. These are the plain, if somewhat ugly, facts that our study shows. The deterioration of the American intelligence is not inevitable, however, if public action can be aroused to prevent it.

There is no reason why legal steps should not be taken which would insure a continuously progressive upward evolution. The steps that should be taken to preserve or increase our present intellectual capacity must of course be dictated by science and not by political expediency." -National Research Council: A Study of American Intelligence - Princeton University Press; 1923

I guess the argument can go both ways, eh?

What you have emboldened further supports what I have been saying. Early proponents of evolution have viewed the process in linear terms. The surely was this sense of less evolved/more evolved as it relates to organisms. Where is the objection? Are you honestly going to deny that?

He wouldn't have to since ALL organisms, human and non-human, are products of evolution according to the theory. Why would humans be exempt?

You can call your description anything you'd like, but you just described was progress. Its very simple-- unicellular to multicellular. Prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Less adapted to more adapted. Less intelligent to more intelligent. The list goes on, and yet, you deny "progress." Surely you must only being doing so because you understand the underlying implication if you don't-- namely, that it explains some justification on the part of racist ideologies, whether you agree with their premise or not.

Its not made up at all. There are different kinds of entropy. Read his page on it and it will explain what he is talking about in great detail. For however nutty panspermia might be considered by both creo's and evo's alike, his understandings are well articulated.

For instance, I have long been an advocate for the specific naming of an immutable natural law. That I am aware of, there is no law of death or disorder that has a specific name, and yet, its as simplistic and true as gravity. Its a cornerstone law that goes on nameless. Klyce here is speaking about this law and how the term "entropy" is often confused. He goes on explaining why the confusion exists, but probably shouldn't.

Of course, this is now drifting off topic, as the 2LoT is a subject unto itself.

What claims have I made that are unreasonable? Quite a few people are saying that I am claiming that evolution will inherently lead to racism. I've made no such claim. What I have said is that based on the teachings, it is reasonable for racists to have come to their pitiable deductions.

Of course I believe all humans are equally evolved, as no doubt, a measure of evolution has occurred in all humans. But could Darwinian macroevolution say the same thing? Well, lets find out.

All human beings can mate with one another, which is the surest way of knowing that they are related. We cannot mate with our supposed current ancestors, the chimpanzee. But what of the various simian kind? Isn't there a difference between homo habilis and homo erectus? Was one considered more or less evolved than the other? Is it possible that one race is more closely related to habilis, while the other is more closely related to erectus?

Are not these images telling of a progression?

Yet, the denial that progress is paramount, all the while showing stepwise progressions.

The zeitgeist in Darwin's time, all the way up to Hitler's, was to show that some men are more highly evolved than others. This changed as people's personal views began to change the science behind it. Now, we're all equally evolved, no better or worse. Why a shift in thought? Is it because racism is now unpopular? Does that erase what the theory is saying?

Well, sure, I agree with that. Its the same with racism and slavery. The new belief concerning slavery was that they enslaved people because they looked different than they. What a silly notion. Racism never factored in to slavery until the latter years.

The slave trade was ended by numerous pioneers, Modulous. You can't just say all Vicotrians, or all liberals, or all conservatives. I could point to you William Wilberforce, as almost single-handedly abolishing slavery. But that wouldn't do justice to the myriad of others that helped him during his crusade to free the slaves.

I'm not. What I've been arguing, from the beginning, is that the question of if evolution reasonably has ties to racism, I believe the question to be a legitimate one. My use of quotes is only to show that it isn't far-fetched at all. I'm not trying to demonize evolution as being inherently racist at all. I'm simply saying that if some people come their "Master race" ideology after having read about evolution, don't be surprised by their conclusion. Its reasonable.

Not intentionally, but inadvertently. What else did you expect would come of it?

Sure, people manipulate all sorts of things for their own ends. No sense in anyone ever denying that. But what else should they deduce after reading the theory in its context? Has there ever been a regression within evolution? Has anything gotten worse as a result of evolution? Probably not. Why? Because of natural selection. It removes the aberrant and retains the strong. So clearly, there really, truly is a sense of advancement in evolution. How can you say otherwise?

quote:

---

We cannot mate with our supposed current ancestors, the chimpanzee.

---

We cannot mate with our closest relative who shares a common ancestor. Is that better, Doc?

quote:

---

There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.

---

I certainly agree with you that it is nonsense, but the point I'm trying to make is that it happens-- less frequently than it did 50 years ago, and even far less than it did 150 years ago. But it happens. And the only reason people came to such a faulty conclusion is the way evolution has been interpretated.

An outstanding point you make here that probably better summarizes what I've been talking about as far as progression is concerned. Would it be coincidental that all of the creatures that people don't seem to care about are viewed in evolutionary terms as being ancient? I don't think so. It seems the more intelligence an animal has, the more assured they are that it came after one of lesser intellect.

Again, if you look at any cladogram, now or from 150 years ago, there still is seen a general progression within the ToE. And if the theory says that humans descend from primates, and Ethiopians are the oldest known humans, then I don't think anyone should be surprised that some misguided racists made the deduction they have.

Yes, its messed up that they say it. And yes, I am aware that it cuts a lot of corners in the theory to come to such a pithy conclusion, but it isn't completed unfounded either. That's all I'm saying.

quote:

---

Klyce listed his reference sources, and I believe it was Lithodid-Man that posted it.

---

Why is he questionable? Because you say so? As far as Dobshansky is concerned, I'm already aware of what he says. He agrees that life shouldn't be characterized in linear terms, but simply states the obvious that, deny it or not, its there.

No.

He was speaking about logical entropy, which was the entire purpose of his thesis. To quote you: Why not read the source and learn what [Klyce] actually says?