Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The height of racism was in the late-19th and early-20th century, and was absolutely a consequence of evolutionary theory.
You're putting the cart before the horse. People just latched on to a bastardized version of Darwin's ideas to add a veneer of science to their own preconceived notions, particularly when trying to somehow claim Enlightenment ideals as well. Black slavery was around for centuries before Darwin and was solidly rooted in the idea that black people were of an inferior race. Of course the slaveowners would latch on to the idea that there was scientific backing for what they did. Like Libertarians will argue that it's simply the natural order of things for the strong to prey on the weak.
Teachers can still "mention" him? ???? If you don't teach Darwin's concepts, you'll have no idea why overuse of pesticides and antibiotics is dangerous.
But you have to couple Darwin with Dawkin's concept of the Selfish Gene. Darwin got it almost right. Survival of the fittest is half the concept - it's the gene that wants to replicate that drives species success.
His theory still holds today and has not been disproven.
I don't know why you say he only got it "almost right".
You're putting the cart before the horse. People just latched on to a bastardized version of Darwin's ideas to add a veneer of science to their own preconceived notions, particularly when trying to somehow claim Enlightenment ideals as well. Black slavery was around for centuries before Darwin and was solidly rooted in the idea that black people were of an inferior race. Of course the slaveowners would latch on to the idea that there was scientific backing for what they did. Like Libertarians will argue that it's simply the natural order of things for the strong to prey on the weak.
So a thing can only be true if I don't want it to be true?
Do you think all humans are equal? Do you think genes do nothing? Do you think all "races" have the same aggregate/average genes? Do you think the only difference between distant peoples is skin color?
Tell me, why are some people smarter than others? Would having children with an idiot produce the same results as having children with a genius? Do you think the average intelligence of the poor is the same as the rich? Do genes have any impact on average outcomes?
What about personality? Is it purely environmental or also genetic? Is musical ability genetic? What isn't genetic? What does the science say?
I get tired of arguing about what should be obvious. Humans are not equal. And the more distantly related people are, the more unequal they are. I have no interest in ascribing inferiority or superiority to any person or group because that is subjective. Smart people are often terrible people.
Democrats are enemies of science and individual liberty. They want to replace the truth and free people with subservient serfs.
PS: "Fitness", as described by Darwin, has nothing to do with "physical fitness". "Fitness" exclusively applies to THE ABILITY OF A SPECIES TO REPRODUCE AND PASS ON ITS GENETIC MATERIAL.
The concept of "fitness" has been misinterpreted by many people and applied to social and political settings, which is scientifically inappropriate.
Do you think all humans are equal? Do you think genes do nothing? Do you think all "races" have the same aggregate/average genes? Do you think the only difference between distant peoples is skin color?
Tell me, why are some people smarter than others? Would having children with an idiot produce the same results as having children with a genius? Do you think the average intelligence of the poor is the same as the rich? Do genes have any impact on average outcomes?
What about personality? Is it purely environmental or also genetic? Is musical ability genetic? What isn't genetic? What does the science say?
I get tired of arguing about what should be obvious. Humans are not equal. And the more distantly related people are, the more unequal they are. I have no interest in ascribing inferiority or superiority to any person or group because that is subjective. Smart people are often terrible people.
What the ever-lovin' does any of that have to do with the fact that racism was already prevalent way, way before the ToE and that people simply grabbed a bastardized version of Darwin's thought as a justification for notions that they already held dear? That was the point under debate, as you may recall.
Racism wasn't a consequence of evolutionary theory, mostly because one predates the other by centuries.
Racism wasn't a consequence of evolutionary theory, mostly because one predates the other by centuries.
I said, "The height of racism was in the late-19th and early-20th century"... I didn't say, "There was no racism before Charles Darwin."
Obviously there was racism before Charles Darwin, but it wasn't necessarily scientific. It was assumptions based on observations. Thomas Jefferson wrote a book discussing his observations of black people nearly 100 years before Charles Darwin wrote Descent of Man.
There is no doubt that racism was used to justify slavery, but racist attitudes were dramatically different depending on the race. Thomas Jefferson had nothing but nice things to say about the Native-Americans. Asians were never stereotyped as stupid even when they were coolies working as low-skilled labor.
"Just as many believed that Africans had an affinity for hard outdoor labor, W. L. Distant believed that Indian, Chinese, and Japanese coolies were different in their ability to perform certain jobs. Indian coolies were viewed as lower in status. Those who ran estates believed that Chinese and Japanese coolies were harder working, united, and clean. Indian coolies, on the other hand, were viewed as dirty and were treated as children who required constant supervision."
This is why Asians were deemed the "Yellow Peril". That unless Asia was kept down by a United West, China and Japan would eventually conquer, subjugate, and enslave the West. A kind of repeat of the Mongol Empire.
If Europeans just wanted to enslave everyone, they would have said that everyone but them was inferior, including if not especially Asians. The biggest white racists today will proudly tell you that East Asians have higher IQ's than whites. The same people who hate the Jews will openly admit Ashkenazi Jews score higher on standardized tests than whites, especially in verbal.
So your framing of racism as merely an invention of expediency to justify slavery, has no basis in reality. Racism came first, race as a justification for slavery came after.
You have to view Charles Darwin within the context of his time, just like Jefferson or Washington or Lincoln and I say this as person of color. I haven’t read, I’m sure most haven’t, The Descent of Man but I know it’s effects on how race was categorized during the 19th century.
The negative impacts of The Descent of Man were secondary to his Origin Of A Species. This theory was EVERYTHING to science. Natural Selection was EVERYTHING to science, just like Issac Newton’s understanding of Gravity or Albert Einstein’s Relativity.
Sometimes you just have to take the good with the bad because Darwin, along with Gregory Mendel, laid the foundation for biology and genetics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
