Does Darwinism lead to bigotry? (1 Viewer)

[Peter Grimm]

Darwin is no more responsible for the perversions of his work by Hitler and others than Mozart is responsible for the screechings of inept violinists.

Perversions? According to some, Darwin doesn't make a moral claim. If that's true, then Hitler is not perverting the work of Darwin.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Perversions? According to some, Darwin doesn't make a moral claim. If that's true, then Hitler is not perverting the work of Darwin.

If Darwin led to Hitler then jesus lead to Bin Laden. Both make about as much sense.

 

[Surtr]

Come at me with some facts, as opposed to speculation, and we'll have a better debate. Otherwise, like I said, cool story bro. Got any more?

Says the guy who presented nothing but speculation. You trollin bro?

 

[Jack Hays]

Perversions? According to some, Darwin doesn't make a moral claim. If that's true, then Hitler is not perverting the work of Darwin.

Whether Darwin did or did not make a moral claim is irrelevant.

 

[Gardener]

After reading through this thread, I have serious reservations as to any claims that only the most fit survive.

 

[Removable Mind]

We know that Charles Darwin was a racist, that fact is undeniable.

Darwin's doctrine of evolution depicts the "gorilla" and the "negro" occupying evolutionary positions between the "baboon" and the "civilized (Caucasian) races of man.

According to Harvard University's Stephen Jay Gould, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, (that is, before Darwin) but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Point in case: Hitler was a committed student of Darwin's evolution. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke of "lower human types." He accused the Jews of bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the purpose of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization."

Is it possible to admire someone who was so blatantly racist and evil?

So are you saying that Darwin had evil intentions during the course of his research? He predicted in his own mind that his research would lead to a a major scientific debate that would ultimately be tested over and over again to destroy his research. But more importantly would be used by insane dictators and the like to attempt to control races of humanity?

 

[Knowledge=power]

Even IF he was racist that's not what he is admired for. His work changed the course of scientific history.

The founding fathers of this country all owned slaves... we still sing the national anthem and praise them for creating the constitution.

 

[iangb]

Since we are talking about Darwin's influence and not about the modern theory of evolution, "Darwinism" is the correct term.

Does Darwinism have to make a direct "moral claim" in order to affect someone's morals?

Of course not. Your premise is incorrect, hence your argument fails.

If Darwin does not make a moral claim but instead describes what 'naturally' occurs (as Darwin did), and other people interpret that description in order to make a moral claim, then those people are guilty of the appeal to nature fallacy, as Tucker quite accurately stated. It is not my argument which fails but theirs - and, if you say that 'Darwinism leads to bigotry', your argument as well.

EDIT:

Perversions? According to some, Darwin doesn't make a moral claim. If that's true, then Hitler is not perverting the work of Darwin.

If Darwin does not make a moral claim but Hitler uses 'Darwinism' to make a moral claim, then Hitler is indeed perverting 'Darwinism'.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

We know that Charles Darwin was a racist, that fact is undeniable.

Darwin's doctrine of evolution depicts the "gorilla" and the "negro" occupying evolutionary positions between the "baboon" and the "civilized (Caucasian) races of man.

According to Harvard University's Stephen Jay Gould, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, (that is, before Darwin) but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Point in case: Hitler was a committed student of Darwin's evolution. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke of "lower human types." He accused the Jews of bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the purpose of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization."

Is it possible to admire someone who was so blatantly racist and evil?

Most of the founding fathers were profoundly racist, and sexist. Do you admire them?

A racist culture is the one in which Darwin grew up, just like them. It's just a sad reality of the matter. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a landmark scientist. But Darwin was just the first big step. Evolution is a hell of a lot more than Darwin could ever imagine. No one believes in "Darwinism," and if they do, what they believe is not evolution.

The scientific theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with cultural variation or race. NOTHING. And you know why? Because biologically speaking, race doesn't exist. They can't be shown to exist biologically if there is no actual difference between one race and another in terms of the structure of their DNA.

People who apply evolution to culture and race don't understand evolution, and are applying it to something that it doesn't apply to. The science itself is not racist. The science doesn't even recognize race as a real thing.

So all you've done here point out that some people are stupid. Well, duh. That doesn't mean science or evolution is racist. It means that scientifically illiterate people are racist.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

The scientific theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with cultural variation or race. NOTHING. And you know why? Because biologically speaking, race doesn't exist. They can't be shown to exist biologically if there is no actual difference between one race and another in terms of the structure of their DNA.

actually if we were talking about anything but humans, the clear visual differences between these geographic groups, and the fact that these differences represent a level of uniformity within them, would likely have lead to there being taxonomic distinctions between them, at the species or sub-species level. In the era of genetics, such might prove to be different, but I think the question of distinct genetic differences is still pretty open to debate and shouldn't simply be dismissed

PS the later doesn't make a value based claim on what genetic profile is superior, regardless of it's final answer

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

actually if we were talking about anything but humans, the clear visual differences between these geographic groups, and the fact that these differences represent a level of uniformity within them, would likely have lead to there being taxonomic distinctions between them, at the species or sub-species level. In the era of genetics, such might prove to be different, but I think the question of distinct genetic differences is still pretty open to debate and shouldn't simply be dismissed

PS the later doesn't make a value based claim on what genetic profile is superior, regardless of it's final answer

We don't necessarily do this with other animals. They're only considered a different species if they cannot produce fertile offspring together. Even if they look very different, they are the same species if they producer fertile young.

We've actually learned a lot more about this in the last few years.

All of these genes are present in every single human being. In cases of minor mutation within a geographical race (like sickle cell/malaria defense), any human of any race placed under those conditions would develop the same minor mutation. We have actually tried this, and found it to be true.

So although the races have different physical profiles, they don't exist biologically. There is no real genetic difference between them.

We have tested DNA extensively, and mitochondrial DNA especially proves that there is no true biological difference between the races. People of different races may have identical mitochondria DNA. In fact, there's more genetic diversity within races than between them.

 

[Peter Grimm]

So are you saying that Darwin had evil intentions during the course of his research? He predicted in his own mind that his research would lead to a a major scientific debate that would ultimately be tested over and over again to destroy his research. But more importantly would be used by insane dictators and the like to attempt to control races of humanity?

No, I've said none of those things. Those ideas are all attributable to your imagination.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Even IF he was racist that's not what he is admired for. His work changed the course of scientific history.

The founding fathers of this country all owned slaves... we still sing the national anthem and praise them for creating the constitution.

Good point.

 

[Removable Mind]

No, I've said none of those things. Those ideas are all attributable to your imagination.

Thanks, at least I have one.

 

[Peter Grimm]

If Darwin does not make a moral claim but instead describes what 'naturally' occurs (as Darwin did), and other people interpret that description in order to make a moral claim, then those people are guilty of the appeal to nature fallacy, as Tucker quite accurately stated. It is not my argument which fails but theirs - and, if you say that 'Darwinism leads to bigotry', your argument as well.

This (bolded) is where your argument fails. You're presenting a speculative premise which was never part of my original argument. I never made the claim that others would interpret what is "natural" and turn it in to any moral claim.

You must be missing the same brain cells as Tucker, where you can't grasp the concept of neutrality.

Something can be either good, bad, or neutral.

If Darwin does not make a moral claim but Hitler uses 'Darwinism' to make a moral claim, then Hitler is indeed perverting 'Darwinism'.

I think I'm starting to understand your main malfunction.

OK, here's another way to think about it that might just click with you.

If Darwin does not make a moral claim, and Hitler similarly does not make a moral claim but acts in a way that is in accordance to natural law as outlined by Darwin, can you say that he (Hitler) is either good or bad? No. To do so would be natural fallacy. You can make no judgement either way on that premise.

Therefore, neither Darwin nor Hitler can be judged as evil based on the "naturalness" of their world views. You can, however, discern good from evil by the end results.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Yes, but all of these genes are present in every single human being. In cases of minor mutation within a geographical race (like sickle cell/malaria defense), any human of any race placed under those conditions would develop the same minor mutation. We have actually tried this, and found it to be true.

Such things are what distinctions between species and sub-species are based on. Taxonomy is currently going through a retro fitting though, with such classifications being more dependent on genetic profiles

So although the races have different physical profiles, they don't exist biologically. There is no real genetic difference between them.

!) if you look at forensics, you will see they have had great success with identifying human remains, based on "race". Which in this case, are distinct geographically isolated populations.

2) I think such distinctions are based on allele frequency and genetic markers. Which is the same method currently used to map individuals cultural heritage

We have tested DNA extensively, and mitochondrial DNA especially proves that there is no true genetic difference between the races. People of different races may have identical mitochondria DNA. In fact, there's more genetic diversity within races than between them.

there are probably more genetic similarities between the finches of the gallopogos than there are differences, but they still represent distinct populations and species.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Most of the founding fathers were profoundly racist, and sexist. Do you admire them?

No, I don't.

A racist culture is the one in which Darwin grew up, just like them. It's just a sad reality of the matter. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a landmark scientist.

He was a landmark scientist, I agree. Being a landmark scientist doesn't excuse him from being a racist prick. The culture in which he grew up does not excuse him from being a racist prick either.

But Darwin was just the first big step. Evolution is a hell of a lot more than Darwin could ever imagine. No one believes in "Darwinism," and if they do, what they believe is not evolution.

The scientific theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with cultural variation or race. NOTHING. And you know why? Because biologically speaking, race doesn't exist. They can't be shown to exist biologically if there is no actual difference between one race and another in terms of the structure of their DNA.

People who apply evolution to culture and race don't understand evolution, and are applying it to something that it doesn't apply to. The science itself is not racist. The science doesn't even recognize race as a real thing.

So all you've done here point out that some people are stupid. Well, duh. That doesn't mean science or evolution is racist. It means that scientifically illiterate people are racist.

Race does have a biological basis. Racial differences evolved as adaptations to different environments. Race can be determined by DNA analysis.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Such things are what distinctions between species and sub-species are based on. Taxonomy is currently going through a retro fitting though, with such classifications being more dependent on genetic profiles

!) if you look at forensics, you will see they have had great success with identifying human remains, based on "race". Which in this case, are distinct geographically isolated populations.

2) I think such distinctions are based on allele frequency and genetic markers. Which is the same method currently used to map individuals cultural heritage

there are probably more genetic similarities between the finches of the gallopogos than there are differences, but they still represent distinct populations and species.

All human races can have offspring with any other race and produce fertile young. They are by definition the same species.

Frequency of certain facial bone structures or other minor variants can help identify "race" at a time when populations were geographically isolated, but that doesn't make them different subspecies. These are cosmetic differences. Flip one epigenetic switch in any race, and you'd get the same thing.

This sort of mapping is no different than mapping within a single family. It can identify specific genetic lines, but these don't make something a different species or subspecies.

It is not about the number of genetic differences. After all, we're 95% genetically identical to chimps. It's about SPECIFIC differences, and it's also about how our genes respond to certain environments. There are no specific differences between any human race, and any race will genetically respond the same way to a given environment.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

We don't necessarily do this with other animals. They're only considered a different species if they cannot produce fertile offspring together. Even if they look very different, they are the same species if they producer fertile young.

The breakdown of species tends to be more complex and arbritrary than the dictionary definition suggests. Read this:

Defining Species

this might change with the heavy application of genetics in taxonomy, but the current classification system is a mess

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

No, I don't.

He was a landmark scientist, I agree. Being a landmark scientist doesn't excuse him from being a racist prick. The culture in which he grew up does not excuse him from being a racist prick either.

You're absolutely right. He can be a landmark scientist and ethically repugnant at the same time, you know.

I don't admire Charles Darwin. But I am impressed by his scientific work.

Race does have a biological basis. Racial differences evolved as adaptations to different environments. Race can be determined by DNA analysis.

No, it doesn't. You're simply wrong.

Your family tree can be determined by DNA anaylsis. Does this mean you are a different race from all other families?

You have a shallow understanding of how genetics works.

All people of all races will respond the same way to environmental pressures. Put any person of any race in a malaria-intensive environment, and within a couple generations, they will have the same mutation that black and Mediterranean people have for dealing with it.

These are not proof of race. They're proof that all organisms are capable of adaptation.

If you grew up in a different climate, even with the EXACT same genetics you have now, you would look different. You might be shorter or taller, have bigger or smaller heart and lungs, etc. Environments are profoundly impactful on what we look and function like, even after birth.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

The breakdown of species tends to be more complex and arbritrary than the dictionary definition suggests. Read this:

Defining Species

this might change with the heavy application of genetics in taxonomy, but the current classification system is a mess

Believe it or not, the clarity of this issue has improved a lot in the last 10 years. This article is dated 2004. I think you need to do some updating.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

All human races can have offspring with any other race and produce fertile young. They are by definition the same species.

again, you can find this in many examples of wild animals and plants, despite being classified as different species.

take for example a newer cross in the orchid world between Sedirea japonica and various Phalanopsis

here is another example that also highlights the general contentious nature of taxonomy

Mariana Mallard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frequency of certain facial bone structures or other minor variants can help identify "race" at a time when populations were geographically isolated

geographic isolation usually leads to Speciation to some degree

but that doesn't make them different subspecies. These are cosmetic differences. Flip one epigenetic switch in any race, and you'd get the same thing.

again, the frequency with which these traits are expressed, and their uniformity within the population, would have lead to clear taxonomic classification in the past, in anything but humans. Again, I am not familiar, in detail, with how taxonomy is using genetics in the newer attempts at classification, but I would be amazed if these long vast occurrences of isolation didn't lead to speciation at any level, and that even the new genetically based approach wouldn't validly lead to such distinctions.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Believe it or not, the clarity of this issue has improved a lot in the last 10 years. This article is dated 2004. I think you need to do some updating.

feel free to update me

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

again, you can find this in many examples of wild animals and plants, despite being classified as different species.

take for example a newer cross in the orchid world between Sedirea japonica and various Phalanopsis

here is another example that also highlights the general contentious nature of taxonomy

Mariana Mallard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the total lack of any truly unique genetic features rules out this possibility in the case of humans.

geographic isolation usually leads to Speciation to some degree

Yes, and that takes much longer and/or much more significant change than what we've seen in humans. If humans had stayed georgraphically isolated for 3 or 4 times as many years, perhaps we would have seen speciation. But because humans' primary evolutionary strategy is intelligence, there was not much need for physical adaptation, and thus we really didn't see much of it, and that we did see was purely superficial.

again, the frequency with which these traits are expressed, and their uniformity within the population, would have lead to clear taxonomic classification in the past, in anything but humans. Again, I am not familiar, in detail, with how taxonomy is using genetics in the newer attempts at classification, but I would be amazed if these long vast occurrences of isolation didn't lead to speciation at any level, and that even the new genetically based approach wouldn't validly lead to such distinctions.

No, it wouldn't. A chihuahua and a Great Dane are the same species. I would say they look far more different from each other than any race of humans from any other race.

The epigenetics of an organism are capable of enormous amounts of adaptation, even after birth. They can also be passed down. Plus, any set of genetic make-up is capable of many extremely different expressions. This makes it possible to wind up with two wildly different-looking organisms, and no speciation whatsoever.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

feel free to update me

I have already explained to you, in general, all of the tests and mechanisms we have studied to come to this conclusion. If you want more, ask your friend Google. I am not going to be your biology teacher.