Could you quote this bit too? I’ve had a brief lookover, but the language is throwing me off a bit.Source.
Maybe. So?
With pleasure.
Let me begin by noting that despite it’s title, the article is only mildly interested in defending Charles Darwin and is much more interested in hurling insults at Christians. That part of the article I’ll ignore after saying one thing. R. G. Price grouses about “mis-portrayal” of Darwin, but he’s up for a little mis-portrayal of his own. For instance he takes a little snippet from Augustine’s City of God as proof that the Fathers of the Church were advocates of slavery. In fact he edits carefully to make it seem that way. Anyone who reads the actual book will know that Augustine did not view slavery as part of the will of God, but instead wrote that God would eventually abolish slavery. So with that note on Mr. Price’s intellectual honesty, let’s proceed to the small portion of the article that does mention Darwin.
Price ascribes the following beliefs to Darwin:
* People cannot be classified as different species
* All races are related and have a common ancestry
* All people come from "savage" origins
* The different races have much more in common than was widely believed
* The mental capabilities of all races are virtually the same and there is greater variation within races than between races
* Different races of people can interbreed and there is no concern for ill effects
* Culture, not biology, accounted for the greatest differences between the races
* Races are not distinct, but rather they blend together
On the first, Darwin was ambiguous. He listed arguments for and against classifying races as separate species. In the end he appears to settle for “sub-species”, but admits that there is reasonable ground for dispute. On the second, third, and eight points, Price is correct.
On the seventh, it certainly doesn’t fit with chapter 7 of The Descent of Man. He ascribes the inability of the Polynesians and Maori to survive directly to biology. It’s possible that in other case, he put a greater emphasis on culture. I haven’t read every single word that Darwin wrote.
On the sixth, Price is flatly wrong. Darwin said that people of mixed race are more likely to be sterile and unhealthy, and mentally inferior in a number of ways.
On the fourth, it of course depends on what you classify as widely believed, and I’ve addressed that elsewhere.
I understand Isaac Newton didn’t know about fission. What a doof!
You know who else was a racist? Hitler, that’s who.
I have similarly concluded that despite the thread title, the OP is only mildly interested in disparaging Charles Darwin and is much more interested in defending Christianity against a perceived affront by Darwinists.
What he really said is as follows:
Again, one can argue the truth of his premise - that “changes in the conditions of life” result in sterility, poor health, etc. But his conclusion, based on that premise, is that if “savages” are removed from their natural conditions, ill-health and sterility will likely result. What he is not saying “people of mixed race are more likely to be sterile and unhealthy”, etc. In fact, he gives an example to the contrary:
Hardly the picture of sterility and ill-health; indeed, the “mixed-race” population was doing quite a bit better than the “pure-blood” Tasmanians.
ETA: Any emphases in the above quotations is mine…
Y’all have a cite for this, naturally. :dubious:
Okay then. Perhaps you need to find the author of that article to debate.
I do not see anyone here arguing that Charles Darwin would not be considered racist by modern definitions. There is debate on whether this is significant in any way.
I don’t know about “advocated”, but he didn’t appear to do or say much against it. He didn’t tell the centurion to free his pais (or stop having sex with him, for that matter).
Anti-abortionists cite Margaret Sanger’s views on race. Since she was a racist, the women’s movement should not exist.
If you know Henry Ford’s views on Jews, then you should refuse to buy anything made by the factory assembly method ever again.
So, it’s like important, and stuff! For some reason. Or something.
Yeah, and because Walt Disney was an (alleged) anti-semite, the Disney corporation is evil and should be eradic… actually, you can have that one.
My last statement there was a bit of snarkiness. The important part is Darwin’s attitude towards the “savage races”, as I summarized it in three points. That attitude fills the entire second half of chapter seven. He says that people cannot teach savages facets of civilization such as agriculture because “they cannot, or will not, change their habits.” Later in the same paragraph he says that savages will become alcoholic, “bewildered and dull”, and so forth, whenever they come in contact with white people.
Then he plunges into a long list of examples to prove the point. Tasmanian natives went extinct despite several attempts to keep them alive. The Maori were in the process of dieing out despite attempts to bring them into civilization. And so forth. And he puts considerable emphasis on the claim that these things happen because of biology, as opposed to merely cultural differences.
So firstly we have fought some ignorance. Secondly we now know more about history, and particularly about the origins of the eugenics movement. Thirdly, in contrast to the common claim that Darwin made extremely accurate predictions, we can now develop a new perspective. He may have been good at understanding finches and tortoises, but his predictions about humanity, race, psychology, and society were almost totally wrong.
Again, to the contrary; your points revolved around Darwin believing that some races are genetically inferior, and here he does not say whether or not the various unpleasant affects he says occur are due to innate differences in genetics or to cultural differences. And i’ll point out once again that he’s comparing “civilised” to savage, not white-skinned to dark, thereby suggesting he’s talking about cultural differences.
As for it being a bit of snark, I do not consider;
To be anything like a mere throwaway bit of snarkiness. You put forth an argument, which you now appear to be backtracking on while trying to appear not to do so.
Where?
But again, so? It’s only in the most simplistic interpretation that Darwin writes the first and last word on evolution (and can be cast by creationists as a cult called “Darwinism” where he is revered and can do no wrong). Rather, Darwin had a very good idea, backed up by very good research, and if he speculated on what the idea meant, in directions we now know to be false - big deal.
Marie Curie probably had some loopy theories about radiation, too. This doesn’t require a “new perspective” on Curie or Darwin; it just acknowledges the rather banal fact that they were pioneers who opened up vast horizons of research for others to explore in detail.
And Newton was into astrology and alchemy. Big hairy non-gold-transformin’-deal.
You say that like it’s a bad thing:
Darwin does, indeed, get many of the facts wrong, relative to what we now understand about the relationships of various human populations. But you still have not demonstrated that Darwin was either a) racist, or b) a supporter of eugenics.
I’ll concede that Darwin’s views would be considered racist by today’s standards.
I’d like to see ITR concede that Darwin’s views were fairly progressive for a 19th century Brit, and concede that Darwin was not a Eugenicist.