Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

ambrose searle wrote in talk.origins 

>> >> > He differentiated between races and societies as superior and 
>> >> > inferior based on their level of evolutionary development. 
>> >> 
>> >> We have a much different way of looking at "races and societies" in
>> >> our time.  There is much scholarship questioning whether there is
>> >> such a thing as what is commonly thought of as "race." 
>> > 
>> > My claims had nothing to do with modern scientific opinion. 
>> 
>> That is entirely true. Your claim seems to have alot to do with your 
>> personal ignorance, hatred and fear. 
> 
> My claim above "Darwin differentiated between races and societies as 
> superior and inferior based on their level of evolutionary development"
> is not a claim pertinent to "modern scientific opinion." It is, more
> properly, a historical claim that is proven either true or false based
> on the historical record. 

Your claims are based upon your fears and personal prejudices. Most of us 
don't see Darwin as some demi god that needs to be attacked, rather he was
a very smart man, who developed a theory that led to alot of modern 
knowledge. He was a product of his time, and had the same prejudices as 
the rest of his society. 

> 
> The record is clear: 
> 
> http://teachers.sduhsd.k12.ca.us/gstimson/socialdarwin.htm 
> 
>> > "The inferior vitality of mulattoes is spoken of in a trustworthy 
>> > work*(5) as a well-known phenomenon; and this, although a different 
>> > consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced
>> > as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races." 
>> 
>> Perhaps you should read the entire chapter. Darwin does not even reach
>> the same level of bigotry that the rest of European society reached 
> 
> What a piece of despicable logic. Do you also justify the activity of 
> Tim McVeigh on the grounds that it "didn't even reach the level of other
> terrorists of his day such as Bin Laden"? 

Huh? What does that have to do with anything. You are trying to judge a
19th century man on the basis of the liberal 21st century position. Not
judge a late 20th century man by the mores of the late 20th century
America. 

> 
>> at the time, and the sentence you cited above barely indicates any
>> racism at all. 
> 
> Really? I'll bet if you refuse to hire a mullato on the grounds of the 
> "trustworthy" scientific work Darwin alludes to which proves that they 
> are inferior in vitality, you will not only be called a racist, you 
> would be successfully sued rather rapidly as a result of such crass 
> racism. 

On the other hand, since Darwin did not write this today, but over a
hundred years ago, the point is moot. 
> 
> To say "yeah, but there were a lot of worse racists in 1871" doesn't 
> change the fact that Darwin was racist. To say that there were a lot of
> worse killers in 1895 than Lizzie Borden doesn't offer a legitimate 
> excuse for her axe murdering. 

According to what standards? This is your problem. You are attacking him 
for being a typical 19th century Brit. When, in fact, he was far more 
progressive than most of his peers. 

> 
>> Especially when taken in full context. The entire chapter is an attempt
>> to tell if the various races are distinct species or not. And what
>> Darwin really seems to conclude, is that they are not. 
> 
> They may not be different species, but Darwin clearly categorizes them 
> into the lower and the higher races, the inferior and the superior 
> races. 
> 
> That is classic racism. 

And nobody denies that he was racist according to our lights. What you are
denying, or ignoring, is that he is not alive today, he is not a product
of our times, he was never exposed to modern ideas and scientific data. 

snip 

>> I find it interesting that your prejudices have led you to reach so far
>> in your attempts to discredit Darwin, 
> 
> On the contrary, the intimate attachment that Darwinists have to their 
> guru has led them to deny that Darwin himself used his "science" to 
> justify the differentiation of races. It is those prejudices that have 
> led so many in this thread to attempt to make untenable, even 
> ridiculous, denials. 

Sorry, that is patently absurd. Darwin is not our guru. Darwin was a 
brilliant thinker, but still held the prejudices of his society. 

> 
>> Unfortunately for you, scientific theories are judged on how well they 
>> work, not on the beliefs, prejudices, or other behaviors of the person
>> who founded them. Darwin could have been Catholic priest, or even a
>> pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention, and this would in no way
>> affect the validity of his theories. 
> 
> Or the invalidity of them. 

However, his theories are mostly valid. And of course, you seem to miss my
point. His theories regarding natural selection and common descent are 
mostly correct, but he lacked a lot of modern knowledge, and relied on 
many others for examples and research. So it is understandable that not 
all of his work holds up to the test of time. 


> 
> Social Darwinism is a crock. Furthermore, it is highly dangerous. 

Since Social Darwinism was not his, and he apparently did not subscribe to
it, despite your out of context quotes, it has nothing to do with the
validity of his theories. 

-- Dick #1349 "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who
find it." Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951). Home Page:
dickcr.iwarp.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]