Charles Darwin was a Racist and Eugenicist

[Captain_Amazing]

@John Mace

I will also remind the OP that Christ sanctioned slavery.

Well, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Jesus could have been pro-slavery AND Darwin could have been racist. So, isn’t that a pretty big tu quoque?

[John_Mace]

@Der Trihs

And, it’s an accurate observation. We DO propagate defective genes by preserving the individuals that carry them. That’s the price we pay for valuing sentient individuals over some abstract concern for the species. At least, until we finally perfect genetic engineering and can just correct the genes.

And, in fact it’s very old news - we’ve been doing that ever since we developed tools. The guy with genetically inferior muscles and a spear beats the guy with better muscles who’s not smart enough to make and use one.

Oh, and we shouldn’t be teaching our kids anything either. If they’re not smart enough to figure everything out on their own, then we better weed those stupid genes out!!!

[Cervaise]

Charles Darwin was a Racist and Eugenicist

And thus is Evolution disproven.

Or something. Not really sure what exactly. But it sure is forceful!

Anyway, who’s up for bowling?

[Voyager]

It works for art also. Leonardo had teh gay, so good Christians should stay away from reproductions of The Last Supper.
Tesla was a wacko - but AC is still superior to DC.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

Incidently, for those wishing to peruse the non-quote-mined version:

The Descent of Man is available online.

An example of such quote mining:

@Charles Darwin

At some future period, not very distant as measured in centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.

Now, in context:

@Charles Darwin

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. 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.

The general point is that if we were to exterminate “the savage races”, humanity would, in theory, appear more derived from our ancestors than we do with said savages present. Now, Darwin was wrong, to my mind, about the gradation in Homo sapiens from “civilised man” to “savages” to “apes”, but the context of the initial quote has more to do with the conjectured appearance to observers of our lineage should the presumed extinction take place, not that we should exterminate the “savages”.

[Acid_Lamp]

@Cervaise

And thus is Evolution disproven.

Or something. Not really sure what exactly. But it sure is forceful!

Anyway, who’s up for bowling?

Ooh! Ooh! Me! But I always hook right for some reason. Hell, as long as there will be curly fries, I’m in.
As the OP: So What? None of that makes a whit of difference in the fact that Darwin laid the foundation for understanding evolution. We’ve come a long, long, LONG way since then, or are all the other scientists who have helped expand and confirm the theory of evolution “racists and eugenicists” as well?

[Darwin_s_Finch]

@ITR Champion

So to summarize, Darwin opposed genocide, but he leaves the door wide open for sterilization, castration, imprisonment of the “unfit”, interracial marriage bans, and other policies typically gathered under the name of eugenics.

Or not…

@Charles Darwin

The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate
problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject
poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil,
but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in
marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the
prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior
members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like
every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high
condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid
multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be
feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise
he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be
more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence
our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious
evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means.

[BrainGlutton]

@xtisme

Be like someone 2 hundred years from now criticizing us because we don’t believe apes should have human rights or something to that effect.

Our descendants will look back with mixed horror and amusement at a time when horses were enslaved and women free.

[Yllaria]

@Stealth Potato

. . . I respect Thomas Jefferson’s role in the founding of this country, but I wouldn’t even feel comfortable sitting down to have lunch with him because 1) he’s dead, and 2) his ideals (though enlightened for his day) make him a racist hypocrite by my standards.

That’s rampant thanatophobia, that is. That is sooooo 2008.

[Lemur866]

@ITR champion

So to summarize, Darwin opposed genocide, but he leaves the door wide open for sterilization, castration, imprisonment of the “unfit”, interracial marriage bans, and other policies typically gathered under the name of eugenics.

So, where exactly in your quote does Darwin talk about sterilization? It isn’t mentioned. Neither is castration. Neither is imprisonment of the unfit. Neither is interracial marriage bans.

This is what you creationists are reduced to. You can’t argue the science, you can’t argue the evidence, so you make shit up.

And then you wonder why so many atheists look askance at the religious. You religious people have no MORALS. You’re willing to do or say anything, since nothing matters except your God.

What do you think Jesus would say if he could see what you’ve done here?

[ITR_champion]

@kaylasdad99

Is there a debate here, Great or Otherwise?

The debate is my position vs. the position in the New Scientist article. I claim that Darwin was a racist and a eugenicist, they claim he was not. I’m willing to take on anyone who defends their positions.

[John_Mace]

@Lemur866

What do you think Jesus would say if he could see what you’ve done here?

Surely the Baby Jesus would weep, no?

[ITR_champion]

@Diogenes the Cynic

The OP didn’t cite anything and I’m willing to bet he’s never read a page of Descent.

How much are you willing to bet?

I just finished it yesterday. I confess to skimming the sections on bird genitilia.

While Darwin was a product of his time and sometimes, by 21st century standards, might not seem politically correct, he was, by the standrds of his own time, a progressive who challenged pervading ideas about race. He was an abolitionist who argued that the various “races” not only had a common ancestor but also had the same “mental and physical faculties.”

When exactly did he say this? His position is that differences in the faculties of the races of men are small compared to the difference between men and apes. Nonetheless, he very specifically says that there are innate differences in the mental abilities of the races. See the first few pages of chapter 7.

[ITR_champion]

@Lemur866

This is what you creationists are reduced to. You can’t argue the science, you can’t argue the evidence, so you make shit up.

I am not and have never been a creationist. A quick search will reveal that I am one of this board’s most ardent defenders of the theory of evolution.

You may now issue me an apology.

What do you think Jesus would say if he could see what you’ve done here?

I think he would praise me for remaining calm and polite, despite the numerous insults that people like you are hurling at me. In fact, he already did so. See Matthew, chapter 5, verses 11 and 12.

[XT]

@ITR champion

I’m willing to take on anyone who defends their positions.

You should probably take on Darwin’s Finch then, since his arguments seem much more rational than your own do. Besides, seems like he knows the most about this subject in this thread.

Personally I think that your argument is silly regardless of how you look at it. You are trying to apply a standard of one time on another…and it seems several of the things you used to attempt to do that (from reading Darwin’s Finch’s posts anyway) were taken out of context or not fully fleshed out in order to make your case seem stronger.

-XT

[ITR_champion]

@John Mace

I’ll just focus on this one thing. Nothing in what you quoted is a proposal to do anything. It is, at most, an observation.

I can’t quote an entire chapter. That’s why I tried to summarize. I will now try to summarize again.

Darwin says that it would be wrong for a doctor to kill a person just because that person was unfit. He then discusses the role of institutions and customs in evolution. He divides them among “good” institutions and customs that promote evolution, and “evil” institutions and customs which help unfit people to survive and produce children. And as I said, Darwin uses the word “evil” over and over again.

It’s all in chapter 5, if you’d like to read it yourself.

Now given that Darwin thinks it’s “evil” to have an arrangement that helps the poor, the sick, and the feeble-minded to survive and have children, it’s reasonable to say that he’d favor programs designed to stop this “evil”. Do you not agree?

[don_t_ask]

@ITR champion

The debate is my position vs. the position in the New Scientist article. I claim that Darwin was a racist and a eugenicist, they claim he was not. I’m willing to take on anyone who defends their positions.

All right I agree with the article Darwin’s Finch linked to. Refute each point that it makes.

[ITR_champion]

@Darwin's Finch

The general point is that if we were to exterminate “the savage races”, humanity would, in theory, appear more derived from our ancestors than we do with said savages present. Now, Darwin was wrong, to my mind, about the gradation in Homo sapiens from “civilised man” to “savages” to “apes”, but the context of the initial quote has more to do with the conjectured appearance to observers of our lineage should the presumed extinction take place, not that we should exterminate the “savages”.

This is all correct.

Darwin’s basic take on the “savage races” could be taken apart as followed.

-They are genetically inferior to the white race and therefore unfit for survival.

-Within a short time they would become extinct, and white people would take over the lands that they had inhabited.

-This process was natural and inevitable. Nothing could be done or should be done to stop it.

Darwin did not advocate genocide. In the case of dark-skinned people, he advocated sitting back and relaxing while nature killed them off. The entire second half of chapter 7 is devoted to laying out this line of reasoning at great length.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@ITR Champion

Darwin did not advocate genocide. In the case of dark-skinned people, he advocated sitting back and relaxing while nature killed them off. The entire second half of chapter 7 is devoted to laying out this line of reasoning at great length.

This is a spectacularly impressive piece of misreading. Darwin compares, not white-skinned to dark-skinned, but civilised to savage, though you may of course argue that these are merely code words. And most importantly, he does not “advocate” sitting back and allowing nature of “kill them off”, but pointed out that inter-group conflict between other “savages” or civilised nations often led to wiping someone out. It is no more advocation of allowing such to happen than a study of polio in hospital is an advocation to allow polio to spread unmitigated.

I’m afraid i’m going to have to ask you for a direct quote showing this “advocation”; here’s the online source i’ve been using, to make it easier for you.

[ITR_champion]

@xtisme

Personally I think that your argument is silly regardless of how you look at it. You are trying to apply a standard of one time on another

I’ve already addressed this line of argument in my original post. Looking down on people with dark skin was not universal or standard at the end of the 19th century. Nor was regarding the poor as genetically inferior. Nor was classifying the sick as unfit and wishing for their death. There were large, prominent movements fighting back against both the practice of eugenics and the ideas that underlay it. As I said, Pope Leo XIII had the Roman Catholic Church take a clear stand on the issue. It’s in his encyclical, Rerum Novarum, which affirms the right of every human being to freedom and dignity, and rejects any attempt to punish people for their genes. In addition, the Anglican Church opposed the eugenics movement on the same grounds. So did the Methodist Church. (Hmmm, I think I see a pattern developing here.) The point is that in Darwin’s time, ideas of human equality were competing with ideas of racial superiority. Darwin chose the side of racial superiority. He could have chosen otherwise. If he had done so, he would have done a world of good.

But what I’m trying to say is this. One cannot exonerate him by saying that everyone believed what he believed at that time. That claim is simply untrue.