racist argument for evolution

[vickers_m]

Hi, this topic bothers me, not only because it ends up increase some of the most horrible evil that human beings can display, it also seems to be to some, one of the most powerful or convincing proofs of evolution. This article basically lays out what I'm referring to, but let this be a warning to who ever views it, the content is very disturbing and very offensive.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 677098.ece

[humblesmurph]

Wow. This guy really dislikes the darkies. And women. And gays. Maybe we can find him an island for himself.

[Kurieuo]

Wow. This guy really dislikes the darkies. And women. And gays. Maybe we can find him an island for himself.

Well he seems to want the "pretty" women.

Also, to add in our discussion from another thread, if the unborn aren't people in their own right then they can't be gay either (since being gay is predicated on being a person).

[The Protector]

Well, strictly speaking, he's right that those of African descent tend to score lower on IQ tests. But if he knew anything about IQ tests he would know that the singe greatest determinant of IQ is education. The subtest of the WAIS that is most highly correlated to full scale IQ is the vocabulary subtest-- not because having a large vocabulary makes one intelligent, per se, but because people with large vocabularies tend to be well educated, and well educated people in turn have high IQs. To suggest that people of African descent tend to score lower on intelligence scales because of something inherent to Africans is to make an enormous leap.

It's amazing that scientists of his sort still exist. I mean, statements of this sort were considered scientific fact 100 years ago or more, and led to the monstrous eugenics movement. Well, considering his comment about aborting "gay fetuses", I suppose Watson supports eugenics to some degree. What I do find ironic is that his stating that women should have the right to abort fetuses if they are homosexual in particular was considered contraversial and deplorable. So aborting a fetus because its birth would be inconvenient is perfectly acceptable, but aborting it because it might be gay is unthinkable? Wow, do we ever live in an upside-down world.

[Kurieuo]

It's amazing that scientists of his sort still exist. I mean, statements of this sort were considered scientific fact 100 years ago or more, and led to the monstrous eugenics movement. Well, considering his comment about aborting "gay fetuses", I suppose Watson supports eugenics to some degree. What I do find ironic is that his stating that women should have the right to abort fetuses if they are homosexual in particular was considered contraversial and deplorable. So aborting a fetus because its birth would be inconvenient is perfectly acceptable, but aborting it because it might be gay is unthinkable? Wow, do we ever live in an upside-down world.

Yes, I couldn't help but be struck by the irony.

[Gman]

Darwin struggled with racism too.. Here are a few of his quotes..

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 chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain - whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses."

Here is another one about comparing women and men...

"If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison"

or

"Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman and has more inventive genius".

or

"Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman."

More here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=7&t=2194

[zoegirl]

Some people definitely still believe in that last two!!

[Troublemakingteen]

I find it funny how white racists LOVE to compare test scores but when compared to Asians they are silenced big time. The racist are less annoying than the anti-religious only because they are less educated and easier to handle.

[ryeguy123]

this is the 1800s everybody was racist back then people are now two

[Ngakunui]

Dear lord, people are prejudice.

People in Africa aren't "less capable" as this man likes to think because of race- it's because of upbringing. If Africans were white people, they'd still be going through about the same thing they are now. Society is to blame, not skin colour, race or heritage. If you take a look at modern day Africa, most society will be based around people who are too afraid to stand up to who's making their lives a big mess, and the few that do stand up are generally rebels that really don't have that just of a cause. Why do you think Liberia was in such a mess for so long?

Furthermore, I've known very cultured and intelligent people that were coloured, and very cultured and intelligent people that were African. So frankly, I doubt that heritage is that big of a deal- true, it might have a slight relation to someone's mental capacity, but unless that heritage is inbred, I doubt it's even significant. The mind is more important that the brain it's printed on, from what I see, and I'm just judging from common sense.

As well... just about everyone from the western world held prejudice against black people in the 1800's. It wasn't always necessarily "racist", but most people that weren't black would have some stereotype of black people- granted, it wasn't always a very good stereotype.

For someone who tried making sense of how similar some species were, and equating it to breeding and ancestry back then... Yeah, Darwin is definitely going to be a schmuck about it. It's one of the reasons I'm not too fond of Darwin's theories of evolution. Look at what happened the last time someone took him too seriously; you got Eugenics, and a lot of people were killed or sterilized against their wills.

[smiley]

The claim that white people are more intellectually capable on average (something which we have both scientific and statistical evidence for), is not necessarily "racist". It would be racism to say that they had superior overall human worth.

[Gman]

The claim that white people are more intellectually capable on average (something which we have both scientific and statistical evidence for), is not necessarily "racist". It would be racism to say that they had superior overall human worth.

Yes exactly what Darwin said in his book Dissent of Man... "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination." According to survival of the fittest, these "savage" races will in the future be eliminated and be replaced with the civilized races. In our culture now, superior overall human worth is based on one's status in society or how many degrees, money, or looks they possess. It can also be based on one's intellect, but not the heart of the person. Evolution cares nothing about the heart of the person, but only of it's willingness to survive.

[smiley]

I wasn't talking about Darwin there. Some of his comments can definitely be interpreted as racist. Still, that's just a consequence of living in the 19th century.

[Gman]

I wasn't talking about Darwin there. Some of his comments can definitely be interpreted as racist. Still, that's just a consequence of living in the 19th century.

Under the Darwinian belief system technically there is no soul or spirit of the person. There is no love, no equality, and no emotions. All you have are chemicals, some faster or more evolved than others. Likewise by default you will have some people more evolved than others. In the natural world there is nothing else but chemicals so by default and by the processes of Natural Selection there is nothing else to compare it too but other chemicals. So there are no other solutions. You are stuck with either higher evolved mechanisms or lower ones. That is your overall human world. Evolving chemicals... You can't escape it.

[humblesmurph]

The claim that white people are more intellectually capable on average (something which we have both scientific and statistical evidence for), is not necessarily "racist". It would be racism to say that they had superior overall human worth.

Two questions:

1. What is this evidence? IQ scores? Does an IQ score account for the entirety of a person's intellect?

2. How would one go about scientifically distinguishing the races?


As stated above, the "evidence" I believe you are referring to points to Asians being the smartest, not Whites.