Darwin a racist?

Discussions on creation beliefs within Christianity, and topics related to creation.
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Post by Gman »

Smartie of the Soul wrote:Darwin learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest. Later, in The Descent of Man, he used this experience as evidence that "Negroes and Europeans" were closely related despite superficial differences in appearance.

I think Darwin was a free thinker and not racist, compared with the typical views of his time.
He sure was a free thinker... So free that he snuffed out the equality of the races with his theory of evolution.. The basic message of Darwinian evolution was that some humans were 'more evolved', in the sense of their divergence from apes, than others...

This is confirmed in one of his books “The Descent of Man."

"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. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes. . . 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 civilized 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. (Darwin; “The Descent of Man”, 2nd ed. P.178)."

Regarding the relative size of the brain of savages, as compared to civilized man, Darwin writes:

“The belief that there exists in man some close relation between the size of the brain and the development of the intellectual faculties is supported by the comparison of the skulls of savage (black people) and civilized races (white people), of ancient and modern people, and by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series. …Professor Broca found that the nineteenth century skulls from graves in Paris were larger than those from vaults of the twelfth century, in the proportion of 1484 to 1426; and that the increased size, as ascertained by measurements, was exclusively in the frontal part of the skull—the seat of the intellectual faculties." According to Darwin, blacks had a smaller skull cavity (or brain size) than the whites.. Because of this genetic trait, whites were ultimately superior to blacks who were thus called the savagerace...

Early on in Descent, Darwin discusses various aspects of man he deems significant. Regarding the shape of the human and sub-human ear Darwin writes:

“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but 'a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla;' and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro” (p.15).

Of the sense of smell:

“… But the sense of smell is of extremely slight service, if any, even to the dark colored races of men, in whom it is much more highly developed than in white and civilized races”(p.18 )
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
User avatar
Furstentum Liechtenstein
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Lower Canuckistan

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Furstentum Liechtenstein »

Well, this certainly was an interesting thread to read over. I was sort-of surprised that it ended so abruptly! Thanks to all who contributed.

Some posters seemed to excuse Darwin by saying that his apparent racism was because he was a «product of his time.» Sorry, but that sounds hollow to me. Here is my Merriam Webster's definition of racism:

Racism: 1: the assumption that psychocultural traits and capacities are determined by biological race and that races differ decisively from one another which is usually coupled with a belief in the inherent superiority of a particular race and its right to domination over others. 2a a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles. b: a political or social system founded on racism. 3: RACIALISM


Considering the above definition of racism, it is now possible for me to answer Gman's question, Darwin a racist?

Yes, Darwin was a racist.

I just happen to have Karl Marx' Capital and this great thinker of Socialism and renown atheist devoted two lengthly and admiring footnotes to Darwin's opus. I'm sure that's just coincidence, though. Forget I mentioned it.≠

FL

Capital, Division of Labour and Manufacture, Chapter XIV, point #2 The Detail Labourer and His Implements; and Capital, Machinery and Modern Industry, Chapter XV, point #1 The Development of Machinery.
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

+ + +
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Gman »

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:Well, this certainly was an interesting thread to read over. I was sort-of surprised that it ended so abruptly!
You would think I was battling myself.. :lol:

While I wouldn't say that believing in evolution automatically turns you into a racist...
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re:

Post by RickD »

The spiritual realm is dissolved in the naturalistic world. Yes, I understand that there is a hierarchy in the spiritual realm too, but not so in the human spiritual realm (meaning in the exclusion God or the angles..) because spiritually we are all the same... According to the Bible men and women and all the races of the world are the same spiritually... Evolution deviod of spirituality cannot make this claim. It just teaches that we are simple mechanisms... Someone maybe a porsche and someone maybe a yugo.. Ouch. My car is better than your car... etc...
I was really involved reading this thread, when I read part of this from Gman on page 2. For some reason I got a picture in my head that I couldn't get rid of. I pictured the picture of God like on the home page of God and Science, and a bunch of obtuse, right, and acute angles. :pound:
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
Furstentum Liechtenstein
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Lower Canuckistan

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Furstentum Liechtenstein »

Gman wrote:While I wouldn't say that believing in evolution automatically turns you into a racist...
I read Mein Kampf by a certain A. Hitler and in Chapter XI of Volume 1 there is a distinct Evolution tone. Not quite Darwinian, just tweaked to be meaner and nastier...racist would be a good way of describing it. When I was an atheist attending weekly meetings to listen to Ayn Rand teachings, my little group of idiots loved to point out that Hitler was a Roman Catholic.* That knowledge gave us a sense of moral superiority.

FL

*Ostensibly a Roman Catholic but evidently an atheist; this will be evident to all thinking people.
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

+ + +
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Gman »

Fürstentum Liechtenstein wrote:
Gman wrote:While I wouldn't say that believing in evolution automatically turns you into a racist...
I read Mein Kampf by a certain A. Hitler and in Chapter XI of Volume 1 there is a distinct Evolution tone. Not quite Darwinian, just tweaked to be meaner and nastier...racist would be a good way of describing it. When I was an atheist attending weekly meetings to listen to Ayn Rand teachings, my little group of idiots loved to point out that Hitler was a Roman Catholic.* That knowledge gave us a sense of moral superiority.

FL

*Ostensibly a Roman Catholic but evidently an atheist; this will be evident to all thinking people.
Oh yes... And many fail to see the use of Hitler's eugenics on people. I would believe he is a good example of that.
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Re: Re:

Post by Gman »

RickD wrote:I was really involved reading this thread, when I read part of this from Gman on page 2. For some reason I got a picture in my head that I couldn't get rid of. I pictured the picture of God like on the home page of God and Science, and a bunch of obtuse, right, and acute angles. :pound:
Yes, but it is not the same as a human hierarchy. We become "one" with Him in spirit. Humans or atheistic naturalism can't offer that..
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
User avatar
RickD
Make me a Sammich Member
Posts: 22063
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen

Re: Re:

Post by RickD »

Gman wrote:
RickD wrote:I was really involved reading this thread, when I read part of this from Gman on page 2. For some reason I got a picture in my head that I couldn't get rid of. I pictured the picture of God like on the home page of God and Science, and a bunch of obtuse, right, and acute angles. :pound:
Yes, but it is not the same as a human hierarchy. We become "one" with Him in spirit. Humans or atheistic naturalism can't offer that..
You must have missed my joke. You made a typo and typed "God and angles" instead of "God and angels".
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.


“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow




St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Re: Re:

Post by Gman »

RickD wrote: You must have missed my joke. You made a typo and typed "God and angles" instead of "God and angels".
Oh sorry bout that... :oops:

My spelling truly does suck...
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
User avatar
Furstentum Liechtenstein
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3295
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 6:55 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: It's Complicated
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Lower Canuckistan

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Furstentum Liechtenstein »

I've been re-reading Darwin. Some of The Descent of Man is funny (as when he says, in effect, «All negroes look alike» [!]) but some stuff also makes sense, such as this:

Inheritance at corresponding Periods of Life. -This tendency is well established. A new Character, appearing in a young animal, whether it lasts throughout life or is only transient, will, in general, reappear in the offspring at the same age and last for the same time. If, on the other hand, a new character appears at maturity, or even during old age, it tends to reappear in the offspring at the same advanced age.

In other words, if you developed grey hair and wrinkles at 45, your kids are likely to develop the same, at the same age.

FL

≠Darwin, The Descent of Man, «Principles of Sexual Selection» Part II, Chap. VIII, Laws of Inheritance.
Hold everything lightly. If you don't, it will hurt when God pries your fingers loose as He takes it from you. -Corrie Ten Boom

+ + +

If they had a social gospel in the days of the prodigal son, somebody would have given him a bed and a sandwich and he never would have gone home.

+ + +
Lman19
Newbie Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:34 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Lman19 »

This is such an interesting topic!

Gman, you did yourself proud...and me as well. As an African-American, I know evolution has been used as a sources of racism for a long time and I am glad that you and some others have pointed out that the Bible is consistent with its view that this type of thinking is wrong.

I am not quite sure why posters on this topic keep referring to Darwin in the context of America in the 1800s. You all do realize that Darwin was British right? Not a lot of Brits were really concerned with the landscape of America in the 1800s, so to hold Darwin to an American standard seems rather pointless.While American may be the pulse for the rest of the world today, that really wasn't the case in the 1800s.
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Gman »

Lman19 wrote:This is such an interesting topic!

Gman, you did yourself proud...and me as well. As an African-American, I know evolution has been used as a sources of racism for a long time and I am glad that you and some others have pointed out that the Bible is consistent with its view that this type of thinking is wrong.
Thanks Lman... It's kind of a touchy subject. I believe however if "naturalism" without God is the only answer, then we truly can't have any equality. Spiritually speaking, however, we are "one" under God. Galatians 3:28, Acts 17:26

Blessings to you..
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
Lman19
Newbie Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:34 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Lman19 »

Thanks Lman... It's kind of a touchy subject. I believe however if "naturalism" without God is the only answer, then we truly can't have any equality. Spiritually speaking, however, we are "one" under God. Galatians 3:28, Acts 17:26


Gman,

Agreed! I do hope that someday with Christ we will have true equality as I am convinced that was His will from the time that Adam was in the garden. I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on the descent of man as it is explained by evolution. I will preface by stating that I believe the Genesis account of the creation of man. My own personal opinion is that anything "before" the homo habilis is simply an ape, even if they were bi-pedal. I have not seen anything to make my believe that it is a "presumed" ancestor of man.

Logically the course of the evolutionary descent of man does not make sense to me as man and ape shared this common ancestor. The ancestors of man, who were more advanced than the ape could not survive the environment, but the ape, chimp and monkey did. That would seem to go against natural selection...if the more primitive survived, then we would have just stopped evolving (unless there is something I am missing).

The neanderthal is puzzling because the reconstruction of the skulls appears to be somewhat human, but I read an article on this site that states that the mtDNA of three neaderthal skeletons found were closer to the chimpanzee than to the homo sapien sapien. I have heard everything from the neanderthals were the Nephilim of Genesis to they were simply what humans would look like after 500+ years of the aging process. I wondered if you has a thoughts as to this. Look forward to your response!

Blessings to you!
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Gman »

Lman19 wrote:Agreed! I do hope that someday with Christ we will have true equality as I am convinced that was His will from the time that Adam was in the garden. I was wondering if I could get your thoughts on the descent of man as it is explained by evolution. I will preface by stating that I believe the Genesis account of the creation of man. My own personal opinion is that anything "before" the homo habilis is simply an ape, even if they were bi-pedal. I have not seen anything to make my believe that it is a "presumed" ancestor of man.
Yes... There are no absolutes when it comes to man's evolution in the fossil record. The fossil record is simply incomplete.. Even the case for homo habilis is questionable.. Bipedalism in the species is actually considered to be facultative. They didn't keep fires, had no religious objects, no clothes or religious objects. Their tools were oldowan (very crude). "Lucy" as an example, has pretty much been kicked out of the human family tree.

The questions is, why are paleoanthropologists struggling with this issue?

Paleoanthropologists Disown Homo habilis from Our Direct Family Tree

I think these articles cover it pretty well too...

Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology
A Scientific and Biblical Response to "Up from Apes"
Lman19 wrote:Logically the course of the evolutionary descent of man does not make sense to me as man and ape shared this common ancestor. The ancestors of man, who were more advanced than the ape could not survive the environment, but the ape, chimp and monkey did. That would seem to go against natural selection...if the more primitive survived, then we would have just stopped evolving (unless there is something I am missing).
Believe me, you are not missing much.. You might want to read this article on that.

General Rebuttal to the Theory of Evolution
Lman19 wrote:The neanderthal is puzzling because the reconstruction of the skulls appears to be somewhat human, but I read an article on this site that states that the mtDNA of three neaderthal skeletons found were closer to the chimpanzee than to the homo sapien sapien. I have heard everything from the neanderthals were the Nephilim of Genesis to they were simply what humans would look like after 500+ years of the aging process. I wondered if you has a thoughts as to this. Look forward to your response!

Blessings to you!
Yes.. Neanderthal is a tricky one... There are only about 6 or 7 sites of their fossils. Not a lot to go on.. Many people postulate that Neanderthal has been proven to be too genetically different from us to have been our ancestor based on DNA samples. That maybe true and most progressive creationist do believe that. However, there is some evidence that they possibly made fires deep in underground caves and built crude tools for weapons (spears). To be honest with you I'm not really sure, but if you look at them physically, I really don't see too many differences between them and let's say the Australian aborigines (see below), although many would argue against that based on other characteristics such as thicker bones, a higher larynx, a barrel chest, and cavernous sinuses. I think however, other than physical traits and genetics we also need to understand how their brains were "wired". That to me would be the most important piece of the puzzle.

Modern aborigine skull
Image

Neanderthal skull
Image

If anything.. I would think that the Neanderthal is a good example of micro-evolution and not macro. This supposed "human" simply became extinct due to the weather conditions.. We have different races today with different skin colors, skulls, skeletons, etc.. And we all have adapted differently to our environments, but we are all still human. In fact their brain capacity appears to have been no different than that of modern humans. None of this higher evolved stuff.. ;)

Another good article here..

Modern Man, Neanderthals Seen as Kindred Spirits

As for the Nephilim of Genesis I think they would be too small for that...
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
Lman19
Newbie Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 7:34 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male

Re: Darwin a racist?

Post by Lman19 »

Yes.. Neanderthal is a tricky one... There are only about 6 or 7 sites of their fossils. Not a lot to go on.. Many people postulate that Neanderthal has been proven to be too genetically different from us to have been our ancestor based on DNA samples. That maybe true and most progressive creationist do believe that. However, there is some evidence that they possibly made fires deep in underground caves and built crude tools for weapons (spears). To be honest with you I'm not really sure, but if you look at them physically, I really don't see too many differences between them and let's say the Australian aborigines (see below), although many would argue against that based on other characteristics such as thicker bones, a higher larynx, a barrel chest, and cavernous sinuses. I think however, other than physical traits and genetics we also need to understand how their brains were "wired". That to me would be the most important piece of the puzzle.
Thanks for the response. The skulls do seem extremely similar. If micro-evolution, then you are of the opinion that the Neanderthal and modern human are connected? Are you of the opinion that the Neanderthal and modern human were on earth at the same time? Are you aware of any scriptural reference that speaks of what we know as the Neanderthal? I appreciate your articles on how molecular biology refutes evolution...it taught me some things and thanks for the discussion.
Post Reply