There are clear iq and physical differences between races

[Philip]

Athletic gene: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... boost.html

[PaulSacramento]

Everyone in the know, knows that great athletes are born, not made.
Maybe we need a new term, geneticisim ?

[Car]

About race and intelligence http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao8W2tPujeE watch this documentary and take your own conclusion ,I believe that science is about facts ,but if you accept that you have to accept also that science is racist,there a lot of scientist btw who tried to prove that races have different intelligence but they stopped their work because they were called racist

I hope you guys think before you give your answers.I used to be believe in a God but I can't anymore believe to lies ,lies ,lies I refuse to do that,but somewhere deep inside me I hope you guys what are you telling me is real ,don't forget to live your life to the best and love your siblings and love people because heaven might not be how you imagined it

[RickD]

car wrote:
there a lot of scientist btw who tried to prove that races have different intelligence but they stopped their work because they were called racist

Car, don't you see the glaring problem with this statement?

Your statement says the scientists tried to prove that different races have different intelligence. If these scientists were practicing science properly, wouldn't they try to find out if different "races" have different intelligence? Instead, they are out to prove what they already believed. It's not difficult to see how such scientists were considered racist. They went into the experiment already concluding something racist!

[Danieltwotwenty]

Daniel,
Take this to its logical conclusion, and try to look at it objectively. If certain ethnic groups, or races, whatever you want to call them, are considered "less evolved", such as black Africans and aboriginal Australians, then tell me logically how that doesn't lead to racism. Stick to my point. Focus. White American slave owners used this same rationale to justify the enslavement of black Africans. You know the old "right to life, liberty, etc. for all men" didn't apply to slaves because they weren't considered "men". They were less than human in the eyes of many slave owners/traders. I'm not saying all those slave owners used Darwinian evolution for their racism, but maybe they did(it was written in 1859 I believe).

Evolution says that there is one race, the human race, there are very little difference between us and the small differences there are are not racist reflections at all, it is humans that discriminate based on differences not evolutionary processes.

Daniel,
Tell me how Darwinian evolution taken to its logical conclusion, DOES NOT promote racism. Instead of being emotional and losing respect for me, show me where I'm wrong.
Surely you understand how native Australians have been treated as less than human, don't you?

I am not emotional at all, just dumb founded by the straw man coming from someone I regard as intelligent.

As stated before evolution points out small differences within the one race of beings (evolution does not account for all these differences either as others have stated.), racism is discriminating because of said differences. Evolution is an explanatory model of how God created us, racism is a human creation of how we can discriminate against people who are not the same as us. There are also a whole host of other types of discrimination, do we hold evolution responsible for sexism, if we follow your logical conclusion about evolution and apply that O.E.C it would make God responsible for racism because he created us.

[Ivellious]

Take this to its logical conclusion, and try to look at it objectively. If certain ethnic groups, or races, whatever you want to call them, are considered "less evolved", such as black Africans and aboriginal Australians, then tell me logically how that doesn't lead to racism.

Rick, yes, if you phrase it that way (that certain ethnic groups are "less evolved"), then of course that leads to racism. And people have incorrectly used that kind of phrasing to justify racism. Unfortunately for that argument, it's bunk in the first place. Black Africans are no less evolved than white Europeans. Humankind has been in existence for a certain amount of time, and evolution has been acting on the human populations around the globe ever since. That is, if you trace our ancestry back, black Africans have been evolving for tens of thousands of years as homo sapiens. Same goes for White Europeans. Just because white people came later doesn't mean they are "more" evolved. Now, if white people had come into being and replaced black people altogether, then you could justify that argument scientifically, but since we are all one species, we have all evolved for the same amount of time. We certainly evolved differently depending on where the populations were, however.

White American slave owners used this same rationale to justify the enslavement of black Africans. You know the old "right to life, liberty, etc. for all men" didn't apply to slaves because they weren't considered "men". They were less than human in the eyes of many slave owners/traders. I'm not saying all those slave owners used Darwinian evolution for their racism, but maybe they did(it was written in 1859 I believe).

It might be true that "evolution" was improperly used to justify slavery. It is also true that dozens of reasons (all BS, in my opinion) were used to justify slavery. They ranged from pseudo-scientific to religious to technological to economical. Some even felt like enslaving Africans was a good thing for the Africans, or at least they said so. But I'd wager that just because Christian leaders used the Bible to justify slavery, that you don't think they were properly using that source. I say the same about Darwinian evolution. Just because they used it doesn't make it the correct (or logical) end of evolutionary thought, nor does it make evolution a negative concept.

Tell me how Darwinian evolution taken to its logical conclusion, DOES NOT promote racism. Instead of being emotional and losing respect for me, show me where I'm wrong.

Again, because if you actually understand the science of it, evolution tells us that, while we may have evolved in somewhat separate ways, we are all the exact same species and have evolved for the same amount of time as any other humans. If evolution promoted racism, it would predict or point out that each race is inherently better or more evolved than others, or that in an evolutionary sense certain races have evolutionary advantages over others. Which, for the record, it does not. Especially with the modern evolutionary synthesis and the advent of genetics being used in evolutionary study, any sort of "evolution leading to racism" is clearly a farce or a manipulation of the science into something else.

[neo-x]

Rick, Ivel is right, furthermore you are now unintentionally making the same kind of argument, atheists usually make against the bible being used to condone slavery or genocide or crusades. Also its the same as saying that cars promote accidents or swimming promotes drowning. We know thats not true. Its a non-sequitur. The conclusion is false and is not warranted, my friend.

[neo-x]

read this article
The article is quite harsh towards creationist movement, but I think it makes valid points in defense of the science of evolution being wrongly labeled as promoting racism.

[Ivellious]

That article is good, Neo (and I don't just say that because I've been taught by some of the people quoted in the article haha). and I wouldn't say it's all that harsh toward creationism in general, but it does quite strongly point out the idiocy of Ken Ham and the modern YEC movement,, as well as the racism of the southern churches in the 1800s and beyond.

[RickD]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

I really haven't dug too deeply into this yet, so bear with me. A couple of things I am starting to see, are becoming more apparent as I search this topic.

First, I'm seeing the kind of evolution, and the things that Darwin promoted, absolutely are a basis for racism.

Second, those that believe in evolution, aren't eager to admit it, but I'm finding that they really disagree with a lot of what Darwin promoted.

And third, the names of those who are arguing that evolution(in general) promotes racism, are some of the same YEC names that I've come to greatly disrespect over the past few years. And that throws up a red flag for me.

I have no dog in this fight, and I'm objectively trying to look at this issue. The good thing is that I'll be learning more about what evolutionists believe, and it's always good to know more about differing views.


The biggest thing that's bothering me about those against evolution, is the same false arguments are used against evolution, that I saw used against OEC.

One thing you guys can help me with if you are able, is with the topic of Natural Selection, and the different "races" of humans. Any links on this would be appreciated. It seems to me that Darwin believed black Africans were less evolved than whites, and he used that as a basis for racism. Do the most up to date evolution beliefs say that all "races" evolved at the same time, or are some "races" said to be more evolved?


Thanks for helping me work through this.

[PerciFlage]

One thing you guys can help me with if you are able, is with the topic of Natural Selection, and the different "races" of humans. Any links on this would be appreciated. It seems to me that Darwin believed black Africans were less evolved than whites, and he used that as a basis for racism. Do the most up to date evolution beliefs say that all "races" evolved at the same time, or are some "races" said to be more evolved?

Rick, I don't think there's a cogent argument that can be made for Darwin being a racist. The best you could do is argue that Darwin had questionable and downright wrong beliefs about the human races when compared against modern progressive thinking, anything else would rely on misquotations. Judged by the standards of his age, Darwin had quite a progressive stance towards other races, and certainly didn't advocate maltreatment of people based on race.

Anyway, on to your question about human races. The prevailing consensus is that modern humans (h. sapiens) most likely evolved in Africa, and moved out into the wider world in a single or multiple migrations. All of the human races evolved from this original population but, crucially, all of the human races are the exact same species as that original population. Some modern races may be more close in appearance and/or genetic make up to that original population, but not to the extent that you could say one race is more evolved than another in any meaningful sense.

In the same way, humans and chimpanzee evolved from a common ancestor, but humans and chimpanzees are neither more nor less evolved than one another, nor are they more or less evolved than their common ancestor. They're just three distinct species, which evolved at different times. The idea that later species are necessarily "more" evolved is borne out of the misconception that evolution is a ladder, with each rung representing an inexorable climb towards some ideal species - this is not a tenet of modern evolutionary thought.

If you want some background reading on the migration of h. sapiens out of Africa and the subsequent genetic journey of our species, you could do a lot worse than reading this wiki article and some of the sources it references - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_or ... ern_humans.

[PaulSacramento]

I think Darwin read his own cultural biases into his conclusions.
In short, he read something that wasn't really there, ie: He interpreted his conclusions based on his own (mis)understanding that came from his social-cultural background.

A species evolves in the degree that, via natural selection ( still debated ), mutated traits that are deemed most beneficial are adapted by the organisim to deal with the demands imposed on it.
One can't view a race that can handle the extreme cold better than another as "superior" because the other race never had to deal with extreme cold temperatures.

[RickD]

PerciFlage wrote:
Rick, I don't think there's a cogent argument that can be made for Darwin being a racist.

No cogent argument that Darwin was racist? Really? How about Darwin's own words? Like those posted by B. W. Here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 0&start=30

I've done a little more searching on evolution and racism. From what I've seen, I'm confident with my original statement that Darwinism, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to racism. Just to be clear, when I say Darwinism, I mean what Darwin believed, taught and said regarding evolution. I realize Darwin lived in a very racist time in history, compared to the present.

As far as evolution in general leading to racism, I withdraw that statement, because I don't see the evidence(from what I've seen), pointing that way.

I apologize to any people who believe in a non-Darwinian kind of evolution. So, Daniel, Neo and anyone else, if you don't believe in evolution as Darwin believed, taught, and spoke about, then I don't necessarily think all macro evolution taken to its logical conclusion, leads to racism.

[PerciFlage]

PaulS wrote:
Rick, I don't think there's a cogent argument that can be made for Darwin being a racist.

No cogent argument that Darwin was racist? Really? How about Darwin's own words? Like those posted by B. W. Here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 0&start=30

You've half-quoted me, and then linked me to someone half-quoting Darwin as proof that my half-quote was wrong? You missed out the following from my statement:

I don't think there's a cogent argument that can be made for Darwin being a racist. The best you could do is argue that Darwin had questionable and downright wrong beliefs about the human races when compared against modern progressive thinking, anything else would rely on misquotations. Judged by the standards of his age, Darwin had quite a progressive stance towards other races, and certainly didn't advocate maltreatment of people based on race.

I stand by that. The quotations you have linked to show that Darwin had questionable beliefs when judged against modern standards, and they don't show any advocacy for mistreating people based on race. Judged by the standards of his age, Darwin was not even close to being conspicuously bigoted about other races: in fact, to take one of his contemporaries as an example, you'd have a far easier time arguing that Lincoln was a racist.

[RickD]

Perci wrote:
You've half-quoted me, and then linked me to someone half-quoting Darwin as proof that my half-quote was wrong? You missed out the following from my statement:

Oops. I fixed my quote to show you wrote it. Sorry for the mix up.

PerciFlage wrote:
I stand by that. The quotations you have linked to show that Darwin had questionable beliefs when judged against modern standards, and they don't show any advocacy for mistreating people based on race. Judged by the standards of his age, Darwin was not even close to being conspicuously bigoted about other races: in fact, to take one of his contemporaries as an example, you'd have a far easier time arguing that Lincoln was a racist.

Perci, I agreed that Darwin lived in a racist time in history:

RickD wrote:
I realize Darwin lived in a very racist time in history, compared to the present.

Just because there may have been worse racists than Darwin in his day, that doesn't mean he wasn't racist. Racism is and has always been, wrong. Just because white society may have accepted racism at the time, that doesn't mean it wasn't morally wrong. Raping preteen boys is accepted in the culture of Afghanistan, that doesn't mean someone who rapes boys less than his peers isn't a pervert.

I'm hearing the argument from others(pro evolution) that evolutionists have learned a lot since Darwin proposed his theory, which shows Darwin was wrong about a lot of what he said. That doesn't change the fact that what Darwin wrote was racist. His beliefs as he wrote them, are racist. Again, just because society may accept something, that isn't the standard by which we judge if it's morally right.

As far as whether Lincoln was or was not a racist, it has nothing to do with what Darwin taught.