These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007 at 10:19 am and is filed under Eugenics, Evolution, The Critics.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/cue-outrage-in-three-two-one/trackback/
Oh, my. I guess they didn't notice yet because they're already boycotting Starbucks over Wesley Smith's relatively benign quote. Which nicely illustrates the extremist's dilemma: how do you ratchet up the outrage when you've already spent it on a lesser offense?
Well, the reaction on Pharyngula to the original quote was hardly one of "outrage". This new quote is quite simply, however, fraudulent. Is there any reason why "Darwinism's" modern defenders should not be outraged?
This new quote is quite simply, however, fraudulent. Is there any reason why "Darwinism's" modern defenders should not be outraged?
Is the following it? If it is, it is similar to some allegations leveled at ID and religion. I think they are counterproductive and a wiser course is to focus on data centered issues.
Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.
Robin Levett: Well, the reaction on Pharyngula to the original quote was hardly one of "outrage".
Announcing one's intention to boycott the company for having the effrontery to print the quote (and calling its author a "vacuous twit" in the bargain) bespeaks outrage, in my opinion. But we're talking about PZ, who lives in a state of perpetual outrage, so you are correct inasmuch as the comments do not stand out above the usual level of invective.
This new quote is quite simply, however, fraudulent. Is there any reason why "Darwinism's" modern defenders should not be outraged?
In what way is the quote fraudulent? I presume you do not mean it was not the work of Wells, so it must be that you believe that the content is a lie. The full quote is:
Darwinism's impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.
As an argument against the scientific validity of Darwin's theory, this would be a fallacy (an appeal to negative consequences); but as an argument against an ideology, which is what Darwinism unquestionably is as used by militant atheists such as PZ and company in support of their anti-religious views, it is perfectly valid. In any case, it is clearly an expression of Dr. Wells' opinion, and therefore, by definition, cannot be a lie.
Actually, its all a huge experiment in mind control. Drink the drugged, arm-and-a-leg-and-a-major-organ overpriced coffee and the next thing you read begins to seem extremely reasonable.
So, those who are outraged must be doing it all wrong. Drink the coffee FIRST, and THEN read the quote …. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA:twisted:
Bradford, firstly you're right in saying that my point was that the quote was dishonest.
Moving on:
Announcing one's intention to boycott the company for having the effrontery to print the quote (and calling its author a "vacuous twit" in the bargain) bespeaks outrage, in my opinion.
You mean where he says:
I guess I'm just going to have to boycott that overpriced Starbucks stuff. Instead, I'll frequent my local coffeeshop, which is run by a consortium of local evangelical churches.
Damn.
Like I said, coffee must be evil.
Followed by (when others suggested a boycott was over-reacting):
I guess I was too subtle. I should have mentioned that I think our local coffeeshop is much more evil than Starbucks, but I'm still going there. Did you know I don't like religion?
Doesn't that actually mean anything to you?
As for your defence of the slur:
as an argument against an ideology, which is what Darwinism unquestionably is as used by militant atheists such as PZ and company in support of their anti-religious views, it is perfectly valid.
what you are apparently saying is that PZ defends eugenics, abortion and racism. Abortion I'll give you, but that isn't an issue of Darwinism - if only because PZ isn't a Darwinist (strictu sensu). It's an issue of human rights. I challenge you to find anything in PZ's writings that defends racism and eugenics. I could find you plenty that opposes both.
As for your cop-out:
In any case, it is clearly an expression of Dr. Wells' opinion, and therefore, by definition, cannot be a lie.
you can be more honest than that. Wells implies that "Darwinism" - which he equates to evolutionary biology, the science which he was ordered by his religious masters to study so as to attack it from within - is an ideology which supports racism and eugenics (which it does not). He does not distinguish between evolutionary biology the science and "Darwinism", his imagined ideology - he is going for the science.
Darwin himself, for what it's worth, was adamantly opposed to both racism and eugenics, as was TH Huxley. Nothing in the science - since it is a study of what is, not what ought to be - supports either.
As usual, you get some ID wacko complaining that science isn't open for discussion — while the ID wacko isn't open for discussion at all, not even comments.
Mote? Get that log out first, then come let us know.
I'm open to discussion any time with Wells. He just has to go under oath. I'm tired of his prevarications.
Wow, two quotes from fellows of a think tank based in Seattle make it on onto the cups of a coffee company also based in Seattle. What are the odds of that?
Robin, you're responding to me while quoting mb. I was guilty though, of describing mb as eloquent.
Oops; my apologies as appropriate. I added the name at the end - I suspect that I paged back up to the top of mb's comment to check the name and overdid it.
Wow, two quotes from fellows of a think tank based in Seattle make it on onto the cups of a coffee company also based in Seattle. What are the odds of that?
Hey, you're not trying to imply there was design involved, as though there was some sort of intentional, conscious, connection, are you? Because if you are, then as we all know or are learning, you are a closet Creationist, and deserving of PZ Myers' wrath. Until you show me some research, with an actual model and some genuine mathematical probability calculations, the only scientific conclusion is that what you mention is merely the result of random chance.
Now Douglas, you aren't implying that the DI acts at random, are you? Come to think of it though, that would explain the quality of their research program.
"At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.
He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."
mean? Although it is fair to say that he was selected, rather than ordered; which doesn't really help his credibility.
As for your claim that:
Robin, you are mistaken.
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd edition, Vol. I, pages 205-6
The Descent of man, Vol. II, pages 438-9
These are plainly utterances of eugenicist.
But not all is lost Robin, you can always claim he denounced these views on his death bed.
I too would like to see a more helpful reference - perhaps a quote? I think you are referring firstly to the passage which appears at pages 168-169 of the online text version of The Descent (at http://darwin-online.org.uk/co...) - which reads:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.
which is hardly a clarion call for eugenic policies, since it expressly argues that such policies would be "a certain and great present evil."
As for the volume 2 quote - perhaps you could assist?
I don't tend to rely upon stories of deathbed renunciations - I leave that to dishonest creationists.
Darwin himself, for what it's worth, was adamantly opposed to both racism and eugenics, as was TH Huxley. Nothing in the science - since it is a study of what is, not what ought to be - supports either.
Er… wrong. On Darwin's racism TalkOrigins offers DDs three possible defenses when this is brought up, but they are choreographed hand-waves, not denials. Because Darwin's racism is a plain fact, by his own writings. TO's three brush-offs:
1. All Englishmen at the time were racists.
2. The term "favored races" doesn't mean favored races.
3. Darwin's racism is irrelevant to the validity of his evidence.
I like #3 because it specifically dismisses ANY person's "views" and "opinions" as irrelevant to whether or not Lamarckian pangenesis (Darwin's version of variation) and natural selection are the sole means of evolution. Too bad that the average DD applies this selectively to defenders, and never to their opponents - whose "views" and "opinions" are their whole reason for living on bile.
As for eugenics views, Darwin liked 'em fine. His brother belonged to the Whig circle promoting Malthusian-inspired "poor laws" reform to discourage the poor from having children, and his cousin Francis Galton invented both the word 'eugenics' and the societies dedicated to promoting it. His descendants are involved in the societies to this day. In the Name of Darwin.
You've asserted Darwin's racism and support for eugenics. Perhaps you can provide some evidence for those assertions. As to the claim that "he liked [eugenics] fine" perhaps when producing your evidence you could explain why he said what he did in Descent, quoted by me above.
On racism; accepting the evidence then available to him as to the facts of difference is not what I consider racism. Believing that that fact justifies treating the person in front of you differently is racism.
I freely concede that the evidence available to Darwin suggested that "the Negro" was not intellectually on a par with "more civilised races"; he cites his sources in Descent. He was not though committed to that evidence. My point is that if he had the evidence we have today - that racial characteristics are purely superficial, and that in any event the "races" shade into one another to the extent that it is difficult even consistently to distinguish "racial characteristics" - he would have accepted that evidence and revised his views as to the facts accordingly.
He would have been a supporter of the NAACP, not the KKK; just as he was a committed abolitionist, supporting the North against the South.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 7, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
But of course it would have been entirely out of the question, a psychological impossibility, for someone like Robin to come to the conclusion that Darwin was wrong in this instance.
Think about Darwin's reference here to the singular folly of "allowing his worst animals to breed."
It is to be expected that someone who is religiously committed to cult of Darwin would see this passage as coming from "Darwin who was adamantly opposed to both racism and eugenics."
As for the Vol. II quote here it is:
Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as are the lower animals when left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. All do good service who aid towards this end. When the principles of breeding and of inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining by an easy method whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.
The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem: all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members will tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would soon sink into indolence, and the more highly-gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.
As for Dr. Wells, issue that I have a problem with is not his credibility but your ridiculous claim that "he was ordered by his religious masters to study so as to attack it from within." You apparently retracted that statement, thanks.
But of course it would have been entirely out of the question, a psychological impossibility, for someone like Robin to come to the conclusion that Darwin was wrong in this instance.
Exactly what do you know about me that leads to that instant psychiatric diagnosis?
It is to be expected that someone who is religiously committed to cult of Darwin
But I'm an atheist…
Thank you for providing the Book 2 quote. I still don't see any support there for eugenics - or, more precisely, the manifestation of eugenics to which Wells' quote, as with much creationist libel, has tried to tie "Darwinism". The idea that choosing your mate carefully, and having children or not according to the likely outcome, may improve the human race is one thing; sterilising "mental defectives" is quote another. It is the latter which is intended to be invoked by Wells, not the former - but it is the former which derives any support from Descent, and the latter which Darwin condemns in Volume 1.
As for Dr. Wells, issue that I have a problem with is not his credibility but your ridiculous claim that "he was ordered by his religious masters to study so as to attack it from within." You apparently retracted that statement, thanks.
I actually don't see what is ridiculous about the claim, given the Wells' quote I have cited; there is a very fine line between being selected, and being ordered, by your cult leader to "prepare [oneself] for battle".
Exactly what do you know about me that leads to that instant psychiatric diagnosis?
Robin, denying the obvious, you perfectly fit the category that I described.
When prominent socio-biologists like Spenser, Galton and Wilson read Darwin (some of them knew him personally) and come to the same conclusion as I did, what am I to think of your position? You may not like the fact that many leading Darwinists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries promoted infanticide, involuntary euthanasia, and racial extermination, but they did (and some do it to this day, see link in the post by Pez). You are of course free to argue that these Darwinists were wrong to apply Darwinism in this way, but then you should be criticizing these Darwinists.
You may not like the fact that many leading Darwinists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries promoted infanticide, involuntary euthanasia, and racial extermination, but they did (and some do it to this day, see link in the post by Pez).
The issue isn't unspecified "leading Darwinists", but Darwin. What have you got to show that he promoted infanticide, involuntary euthanasia and racial extermination?
Oh, and Pez doesn't touch the quote from volume 1 of Descent - for obvious reasons.
Of course I will criticise those - creationist and darwinist alike - who advocated and advocate (for example) enforced sterilisation such as occurred inter alia in early 20th century USA. You may want to consider exactly what was being criticised as illegal in Hunter's A Civic Biology…, and what was not, in the Scopes trial.
You might also consider the implications of the fact that the many laws prohibiting the teaching of evolutionary theory in early 20th century USA were being passed by the very same legislatures that were passing compulsory sterilisation laws. Mississippi, for example, passed its anti-evolution law after Scopes, in 1926; and its compulsory sterilisation law in 1928, after Buck v Bell.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 8, 2007 @ 10:03 am
The issue isn't unspecified "leading Darwinists", but Darwin. What have you got to show that he promoted infanticide, involuntary euthanasia and racial extermination?
Hi Robin,
Do you hold Christianity responsible for ill-deeds performed by those who affiliated themselves with the teachings of Christ?
Darwinism's impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism's connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record. And the record is not pretty.
Robin's response:
It is fraudulent.
The demonstration:
No it isn't.
Robin on Darwin:
Darwin himself, for what it's worth, was adamantly opposed to both racism and eugenics, as was TH Huxley.
The demonstration:
No he wasn't.
Robin's follow-up:
The issue isn't unspecified "leading Darwinists", but Darwin.
1) The issue is Wells's quote, which was not fraudulent, was about Darwinism, not Darwin.
2) Darwin was a racist and eugenicist.
Robin:
Oh, and Pez doesn't touch the quote from volume 1 of Descent - for obvious reasons.
What obvious reasons?
And why is this necessary when the demonstration of Darwin's eugenics beliefs is complete from the book 2 quote?
The quote from Volume 1:
Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.
Here we see that the check which will curtail these bad effects in European society is constraining the freedom of the unfit in marrying. And one would hope that this check would be increased indefinitely. Voluntary means are suggested, of course, but the previous quotes reveal that if legislators were made aware of the so-called facts of 19th century biology then they would do good service to ensure that laws reflected the need for the superior to outproduce the inferior. Mankind can and should improve his moral and intellectual capabilites (and, therefore, the health of his nation) through breeding and laws should be passed to aid toward this.
And, if you continue in the chapter you find that the natural selection this would mimic is credited for the advance of superior nations like the United States, and that the high quality people in Canada are those coming from western Europe.
As he concludes the entire work in volume 2 Darwin makes clear that he is addressing the "advancement of the welfare of mankind" when he discusses these infringements on the freedom to marry and to reproduce.
And lest you think that anything Darwin calls "˜evil' he also thinks should necessarily be avoided consider this:
Otherwise he would soon sink into indolence, and the more highly-gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means.
There should be open competition between men, the most able should rear the most offspring, man must remain in a severe struggle that he should advance to a still higher condition. If law and custom are impeding this they must be changed.
This is eugenics.
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
The study of factors that influence the hereditary qualities of future generations. It may be thought of as both a science and a social movement. Eugenics proposes to improve humanity's future by increasing the number of children produced by persons who are, by some definition, superior and by reducing the number produced by persons who are physically or mentally deficient. Attempts to encourage larger families from superior parents are called positive eugenics, attempts to reduce the number of children from defective parents negative eugenics.
So what if some Darwinists were in favor of eugenics? Some people here seem to think that by smearing Darwin, his theory somehow becomes less valid. That's like saying that Hisroshima makes nuclear physics less accurate. Or that Jezus didn't exist because some christians used the bible to argue in favor of slavery.
So what if some Darwinists were in favor of eugenics? Some people here seem to think that by smearing Darwin, his theory somehow becomes less valid.
The issue here is that some proponents of Darwinism deny major influence on eugenicists that Darwin and Darwinism in general had/has. That is not smearing Darwin or Darwinism and is not to say that they are evil. For me it is interesting that some Darwinists react in the same way some Christians would react if you criticize their Saint Protector.
So what if some Darwinists were in favor of eugenics? Some people here seem to think that by smearing Darwin, his theory somehow becomes less valid. That's like saying that Hisroshima makes nuclear physics less accurate. Or that Jezus didn't exist because some christians used the bible to argue in favor of slavery.
Yet you will find that neither nuclear physicists nor many mainstream Christians deny those past wrongs but instead acknowledge them and lament that they happened. For the most part, it seems that Darwinists want to brush this under the rug rather than tackling it head on and condemning the practice of eugenics (of course, there are certainly exceptions).
Robin:
Nothing in the science - since it is a study of what is, not what ought to be - supports either.
I find it interesting that you make this statement because it is good reason to assert that ethics are going to have a hard go finding any legitimate grounding in a worldview where MET reigns supreme if it is descriptive rather than prescriptive, something that ethics desperately needs. But that's of course rather off-topic.
1) The issue is Wells's quote, which was not fraudulent, was about Darwinism, not Darwin.
Nope. I was challenged on my description of Darwin as opposed to racism and (enforced) eugenics; that makes Darwin the issue; although I will deal with the claims against "Darwinism".
2) Darwin was a racist and eugenicist.
Untrue in the senses of those words that I have been using throughout. He argued in Descent for the proposition that all of humanity was one species; an explicitly anti-racist argument, since he was arguing against the claim that humanity was made up of several species, which was used to justify slavery. You may have missed it in your no doubt intensive reading of and about Darwin, but he was an abolitionist.
He recognised the desirability, if the human race were to be improved, of voluntary eugenics; he was adamantly opposed to enforced eugenic practices, such as enforced sterilisation of "mental defectives". That practice will feature later in this post…
What obvious reasons? [For Pez's ignoring of the pasage from Book 1]
And why is this necessary when the demonstration of Darwin's eugenics beliefs is complete from the book 2 quote?
For the same reason you didn't quote the following, even though you quoted the rest of the very same paragraph:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.
That is, because it shows that Darwin was opposed to compulsory eugenics. And that wouldn't fit your thesis.
Have you read Voyage?
Now, on the issue of "Darwinism's" involvement with early 20th century eugenics practices, perhaps we should start with a recognition that nowadays nobody (outside of the lunatic fringes) is arguing for teaching the desirability of, for example, enforced sterilisations for the "defective". The teaching that Wells is opposed to is of plain evolutionary biology. The reasoning appears to be, apart from the claim that it isn't an accurate description of reality, that it leads to racism, eugenics and abortion; and presumably that stopping teaching evolutionary biology would prevent those consequences.
With that in mind, what was going on in the early 20th century in the USA? You had a textbook that taught the desirability of compulspry sterilisation laws - Hunter's Civic Biology…. That textbook was the subject of a prosecution in Tennessee; you may have heard of it. A Mr Scopes was prosecuted for teaching from it. But he wasn't prosecuted for teaching compulsory eugenics - that wasn't an offence. He was prosecuted for teaching evolutionary biology.
Following the successful prosecution many states passed similar laws outlawing the teaching of evolutionary biology, which was considered contrary to biblical teaching. Mississippi was one of those states - it passed its law in 1926. So presumably Mississippi's legislators were unsullied by "Darwinism"; that seems to be a fair conclusion to draw, does it not?
So there could be no question of Mississippi's legislators following "Darwinistic" practice and passing a law requiring compulsory sterilisation of "mental defectives", could there? Nosirree, they were all staunch bible-believing god-fearing men, boy, and don't you forget it…
Except… In 1927, the SCOTUS approved a compulsory sterilisation law in the case of Buck v Bell. That wasn't a Mississippi case, of course - it came from that well known blue state, Virginia.
Mississippi wouldn't follow that precedent, would it - after all, it had only the year before outlawed the teaching of evolutionary biology. Well, yes, it would - it passed its law in 1928.
In 1942, in Skinner v Oklahoma, the SCOTUS cast doubt on the legality of such laws - but even in 1956, Mississippi was still performing compulsory sterilisations. It didn't repeal its eugenics law until 2001, having renewed it in 1972.
So; are you arguing that all those good ol' creationists in Mississippi in the '20s were actually closet Darwinists? If so, you've got a hard row to hoe to prove it. If not, you've got a different problem, because you are accepting that the eugenics laws were passed non-"Darwinists". I'm not claiming that the members of eugenics societies didn't also accept evolutionary biology; my point is that eugenics as practised in the States could not have been a consequence solely, or even preponderantly, of the teaching of evolutionary biology, because those passing the laws very often explicitly rejected that teaching, as they did in Mississippi. That makes the Wells quote a lie.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 10, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
To the claim:
Darwin was both a racist and a eugenicist.
Robin Levant responds:
Untrue in the senses of those words that I have been using throughout.
How about in the sense of the dictionary?
rac·ism (rÄ?'sÄz'É™m)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
///
eugenics
n. (used with a sing. verb)
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
The study of factors that influence the hereditary qualities of future generations. It may be thought of as both a science and a social movement. Eugenics proposes to improve humanity's future by increasing the number of children produced by persons who are, by some definition, superior and by reducing the number produced by persons who are physically or mentally deficient. Attempts to encourage larger families from superior parents are called positive eugenics, attempts to reduce the number of children from defective parents negative eugenics.
According to thes, and his writings, Darwin was both.
He recognised the desirability, if the human race were to be improved, of voluntary eugenics; he was adamantly opposed to enforced eugenic practices, such as enforced sterilisation of "mental defectives".
Eugenics by way of legislation is not quite voluntary.
Robin Levant:
This new quote is quite simply, however, fraudulent.
That makes the Wells quote a lie.
You don't get to use your own private senses of words if you are going to call this quote a fraud and a lie.
It is historically factual regardless of your spin and your red herrings about racism independent of evolutionary biology do not change that fact.
Well, my Chambers gives the following definition for racialism (which it defines as identical to racism):
race hatred, rivalry; belief in inherent superiority of some races over others, usu. with implication of a right to rule; discriminative treatment based on such belief
Interestingly enough, you appear to have missed out the other definition from the source you used:
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
which appears to match precisely the definition I am using. Funny that you should miss that definition out, isn't it?
Having said that, all dictionary definitions are culturally dependent. In some circumstances, the bare definition you gave would be sufficient - provided you understand that that is a definition accepted at a time when the scientific evidence is strongly against the belief that racial differences are purely superficial, and that there are no boundaries between races, but gradations. That makes the definition inapplicable to Darwin and his time. Insofar as there was evidence then available it suggests that there were differences in mental and physical abilities - and he cites that evidence in Descent.
To claim that that makes Darwin racist is like arguing that it was unscientific of him to accept blending and Lamarckian inheritance. Since he was unaware of either Mendel's studies or DNA, which are the basis for rejection of both concepts, it is Whiggish to make that claim.
Again, you are ignoring the fact that Darwin was arguing against the racist/slaver position.
As for eugenics: to be fair, you have quoted the entire definition on this occasion - although you appear to have missed the reference in the followup, of which you quote part, to early 20th century eugenics laws in the USA.
There is nothing "not pretty" (Wells's words) about studying hereditary improvement of the human race through selective breeding; what is "not pretty" is a proposal to act upon the claim that it is possible by imposing laws designed to effect such an improvement. I agree with you that "Eugenics by way of legislation is not quite voluntary"; hence my criticism of the legislation passed, often by legislators who rejected the teachings of evolutionary biology, in early 20th century America.
Where we part company is in the claim that Darwin supported such legislation. He did not. He explicitly rejected negative eugenics legislation in Volume 1 of Descent; and it is only be a tortured reading of the Volume 2 passage that you can derive any support at all for a claim that he supported positive eugenic legislation. That reading must however be wrong. He argues that if (breeding) competition between humans is truly free and unconstrained by law or custom, the most able will win out. That clearly excludes the imposition of restrictions by legislation.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 11, 2007 @ 6:34 am
Robin,
I didn't leave anything out. I quoted complete and sufficient definitions.
Each added nuance is just that, another way to think of and use the word.
Racism does not require racial hatred and discrimination, and nobody but you would claim that it must.
Your Chambers is just fine:
;belief in inherent superiority of some races over others, usu. with implication of a right to rule;
You say:
To claim that that makes Darwin racist is like arguing that it was unscientific of him to accept blending and Lamarckian inheritance.
This is a false dilemma.
It is entirely possible to be both scientific and racist. In fact, one could justify racism scientifically.
Again, you are ignoring the fact that Darwin was arguing against the racist/slaver position.
No I'm not - I think that was entirely commendable of him I am not claiming that he was some kind of villain.
On the other hand, I am against vivisection and cruelty to animals, but that does not mean I think they are our equals.
He argues that if (breeding) competition between humans is truly free and unconstrained by law or custom, the most able will win out. That clearly excludes the imposition of restrictions by legislation.
You got he first line right but draw a faulty conclusion.
If they are to be unconstrained by law then legislation must either be passed which removes those constraints or else be removed when it provides those constraints.
If this weren't the case he would not be making an appeal to legislators to learn about biology and do good service toward that end.
This reading is not tortured but accurate.
If you applied the same kind of critical eye to Darwin that you do Wells you would se this.
1) Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but
2) such hopes are Utopian [Utopia is a metaphor for a desirable condition] and will never be even partially realised until
3) the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known.
4) All do good service who aid towards this end [knowledge of natural laws, the attainment of Utopia through the inferior not freely breeding].
When the principles of breeding and of inheritance are better understood,
5) we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining by an easy method whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.
[Darwin has already told us that they are injurious, and that disallowing them will be to our good service].
6) The advancement of the welfare of mankind is a most intricate problem:
7) all ought to refrain from marriage who cannot avoid abject poverty for their children; for poverty is not only a great evil, but tends to its own increase by leading to recklessness in marriage. On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members will tend to supplant the better members of society. [this is not good, and was the case as he and his peers saw it]
9) Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication;
10) and if he is to advance still higher [as he ought, Darwin has said] he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would soon sink into indolence, and
11) the more highly-gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted.[but he ought to be]
12) Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. [many and obvious evils are to be desired for a greater good]
13) There should be open competition for all men [via subjection to severe struggle] ; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. [laws, rules and customs must reflect the need for the gifted to outproduce the inferior]
And now that we have confirmed the role of the legislators, let's take a quick peek back at your preferred reference, Volume I:
Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.
As I said before:
"Here we see that the check which will curtail these bad effects in European society is constraining the freedom of the unfit in marrying."
We know their freely marrying is bad, will adversely affect society, ought not be encouraged by law or custom, and that the hoped for checks should be increased indefinitely.
So; are you arguing that all those good ol' creationists in Mississippi in the '20s were actually closet Darwinists? If so, you've got a hard row to hoe to prove it. If not, you've got a different problem, because you are accepting that the eugenics laws were passed non-"Darwinists". I'm not claiming that the members of eugenics societies didn't also accept evolutionary biology; my point is that eugenics as practised in the States could not have been a consequence solely, or even preponderantly, of the teaching of evolutionary biology, because those passing the laws very often explicitly rejected that teaching, as they did in Mississippi. That makes the Wells quote a lie.
Wow, that took a lot of stretching. Main problem with this quote: Wells does not say that "eugenics, abortion and racism" are connected to Darwinism; it says Darwinism is connected to them. Therefore, even granting the other content here, it does not make Wells a liar in the least, especially giving that Wells didn't even cite how these things are connected to Darwinism (which makes for a nice, pithy quote that isn't easily debunked - I gather that's the point).
I will say this as sort of devil's advocate - I can understand why Darwinists would want to maintain that eugenics, abortion, and racism are not something that naturally arises from MET, in much the same way that Christians maintain that things like the Crusades and the Inquisitions were improper uses of Christian doctrine and authority. However, as Robin so aptly pointed out, it is much harder to get an "ought" from an "is", and so I think this poses a bigger problem for Darwinism.
rac·ism (rÄ?'sÄz'É™m)
n.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
///
Robin earlier asked if "you" had read Voyage of the Beagle. With good cause — in that book Darwin describes quite eloquently his anti-racist views, and makes several soundly anti-racist observations. One should recall that the nearly-fatal-to-the-relationship argument between Darwin and FitzRoy was over FitzRoy's claim that Africans were somehow different from Europeans, and therefore that slavery was justified. Darwin disagreed, violently, on all ends of that argument. So, claims that Darwin was racist are not only wrong, they are crass lies that ignore the facts.
Darwin's letters also correspond to the debates in England over the legality of slavery. Darwin was in favor of abolition at almost any cost. In point of fact, the entire Wedgewood and Darwin families were opposed, and much of their fortune supported the abolition of slavery in the English empire, not least because it was racist.
So we have Darwin's direct disavowals of racism, his direct opposition to slavery and legal racism, and his putting his money where the arguments were.
To claim that Darwin was racist is simply false. Perhaps some people have not read much of Darwin, but no one who has read much of Darwin could make the claim he was racist without malice.
Then we get to the definition above: Darwin always argued that, in their native habitats, aboriginals (usually of color) were vastly superior to Europeans.
Robin Levett doesn't draw the link well enough. Racists were opposed to Darwin and evolution because Darwinian theories clearly suggested that there is no zoological basis for slavery or racism, that racism on the basis of skin color is wholly unjustified. That's what Darwin wrote. If one studies the sermons of the 1865 to 1905 era, one finds many Southern preachers taking issue with Darwin, not because Darwin favored racism, but because his writings removed any hope of a claim for scientifically-based racism.
I know y'all spend countless hours in your laboratories, but didn't you take history in high school?
5) we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining by an easy method whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.
[Darwin has already told us that they are injurious, and that disallowing them will be to our good service].
Let's be clear: Do you favor an end to incest laws and those laws that prevent certain consanguinous marriages? Is that what you mean by either "racism" or "eugenics?"
Will you make the case that such laws are unjust? Can you?
Then we get to the definition above: Darwin always argued that, in their native habitats, aboriginals (usually of color) were vastly superior to Europeans
Indeed. As Desmond and Moore wrote in their biography of Darwin:
Beneath a fair veneer of civility, the gauchos were butchers. Back at the fort, he [Darwin] heard the latest about the General's war. Everyone believed that it was "˜the justest war' because it was being waged "˜against the Barbarians'. No tactic was too extreme. Prisoners were taken and treated like animals"”corralled into a "˜Christian's zoo,' Darwin seethed. The Indian women "˜who appear above twenty years old are massacred in cold blodd,' he was informed. The younger ones too, if ugly. Tactfully he complained "˜that this appeared rather inhuman,' only to be told by a soldier that "˜they breed so.' Genocide was not the way God intended population growth to be checked. "˜Who would believe in this age in a Christian, civilized country that such atrocities were committed?' The butchery might benefit the economy, but it would corrupt the people. "˜The country will be in the hands of the white Gaucho savages instead of copper-coloured Indians. The former being a little superior in civilization, as they are inferior in every moral virtue.'(pp. 141-142)
Wow, that took a lot of stretching. Main problem with this quote: Wells does not say that "eugenics, abortion and racism" are connected to Darwinism; it says Darwinism is connected to them. Therefore, even granting the other content here, it does not make Wells a liar in the least, especially giving that Wells didn't even cite how these things are connected to Darwinism (which makes for a nice, pithy quote that isn't easily debunked - I gather that's the point).
Well, actually, if you read the whole quote, you find that Wells is referring to racism, abortion and eugenics as the "baleful social consequences" of "Darwinism"; so he is saying that they are connected to "Darwinism", as well as the other way around.
Why the fact that you can't get an "ought" from an "is" should be a problem for evolutionary biology, I simply have no idea; evolutionary biology isn't in the business of trying to do so.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 11, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
5) we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining by an easy method whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man.
[Darwin has already told us that they are injurious, and that disallowing them will be to our good service].
No; he reaches no conclusion on the point in Descent; and he has told us elsewhere that it isn't clear whether they are injurious or not:
Whether consanguineous marriages, such as are permitted in civilised nations, and which would not be considered as close interbreeding in the case of our domesticated animals, cause any injury will never be known with certainty until a census is taken with this object in view. My son, George Darwin, has done what is possible at present by a statistical investigation, and he has come to the conclusion, from his own researches and those of Dr. Mitchell, that the evidence as to any evil thus caused is conflicting, but on the whole points to the evil being very small. (The variation of animals and plants under domestication p103 in the text version of the 2nd edition, online).
Regardless, here he is arguing for removal of the laws against consanguineous marriage - or at least a rational appraisal of them, unconstrained by knee-jerk reaction from the legislator.
He certainly isn't arguing for an extension of the existing laws - he was after all married to his cousin, the closest degree still permitted by the laws extant at the time.
13) There should be open competition for all men [via subjection to severe struggle] ; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. [laws, rules and customs must reflect the need for the gifted to outproduce the inferior]
But the latter doesn't follow from the former; certainly not in the sense you seek to rely upon, namely that laws rules and customs must positively favour the most able.
As for the Volume 1 quote, you claim that:
As I said before:
"Here we see that the check which will curtail these bad effects in European society is constraining the freedom of the unfit in marrying."
No, we don't. Here we see that the check that will curtail these bad effects is the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; freely here not meaning unconstrained by law. "Freely" here is used in the same sense as in, say "Wells freely uses quotemines and distortions of the sense of quotations to make his dubious points". That is clear from the rest of the sentence, followign the semi-colon, where he says this check might be indefinitely increased…by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage; not "being constrained from marriage", but "refraining from" marriage.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 11, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
edarrel joins Robin in treating racism and the endorsement of slavery or racial cruelty as coterminous. They are not. One can be both a racist and an abolitionist, as Darwin was, and as many more are - with far less noble reasons than Darwin's.
edarrel implies that Darwin's theory logically precluded racism. It didn't. Did you edit that comment? Wasn't it about unilinealism or monogenism before? Poor memory on my part.
Nonetheless, many held to Darwin's theory and were racists, and neither is race defined merely by skin colour, as you imply in your response.
In case the original point was as I remember, note that polygenism may have been one tool in the kit of some slavers, but it wasn't a necessary one.
One could hold that all of mankind is descended from the same, lower-animal, ancestor and hold that there were gradations of quality in the human race. Like Darwin, he could place Caucasians as higher, more advanced, more intellectual, and Australians as lower and closer to the primeval stock.He could think one naturally tended toward more intelligence and greater morality than the other, and place one as more akin to gorillas.
This is racism.
Robin:
You make a good point on consanguineous marriages. I was a little careless in trying to make the point concisely, but I did expect the logic of the preceding points to carry their due weight. That logic is laid out by Darwin in the passages cited.
The unfit should not breed because that is injurious for society. This can be determined by a study of biology. Legislators should be aware of the rules of biology. Legislators should act in accordance with the betterment of society. No rules or laws should exist which give the unfit an advantage over the sound in reproducing. If such laws or customs exist they should come to an end. Society should better itself through policies and habits encouraging better breeding.
This is eugenics.
As you say
Regardless, here he is arguing for removal of the laws against consanguineous marriage - or at least a rational appraisal of them, unconstrained by knee-jerk reaction from the legislator.
Whatever he was doing he was applying the knowledge of biology and inheritance to politics and society.
Same here:
But the latter doesn't follow from the former; certainly not in the sense you seek to rely upon, namely that laws rules and customs must positively favour the most able.
If the laws and customs do not artificially favour the unfit then Darwin is confident that the fit will rise, and with them, society.
On the use of the word "freely" you are mistaken. You make a poor analogy in your insult to Wells. Grammatically, "freely" can not mean the same in both cases. If it did, it would apply equally to the unfit as the sound, or would entail the changing of laws, which you say Darwin was against.
What does it mean that the unfit should not marry as freely as the sound? Is he saying that the unfit should ponder their decisions carefully while the sound should marry indiscriminately? Of course not; this is exactly what Galton and Darwin lamented in the upper classes.
Is he saying that the sound should somehow be unfettered from constraints against marriage? As you imply, perhaps he thought incestuous marriages should be more prevalent. Or maybe he felt that polygamy or serial marriages ought to be encouraged. But this would be a freedom for both classes, and if it weren't, it would be precisely the government interference that you say he was against.
No, if the unfit are to marry less freely than the sound they must do so by some constraint. And whatever that constraint (even if it is merely the education and guilting of the poor), and whatever the practicality, it, and the thought that condones it, constitutes eugenics.
I'm pleased that you now accept that Darwin was not arguing for enforced eugenics.
Do you also accept that Wells's description of the linkage between "Darwinism" and eugenics as "not pretty" can only apply to the Social Darwinism that appears also to have infected creationists in the early 20th century; and not to the teaching of evolutionary biology, teaching that those creationists passed laws against, and that he also seeks to remove from schools?
You must be wrong in your interpretation of the word "freely" in the Volume 1 passage - since Darwin refers to the "check" as already being in place. There were no eugenics laws in England at the time…
Comment by Robin Levett — March 13, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
I'm pleased that you now accept that Darwin was not arguing for enforced eugenics.
I make no admission and contend exactly the opposite.
What I have demonstrated is that even with your own generous reading you still accept that Darwin was a eugenicist.
I am pleased by this acceptance.
Do you also accept that Wells's description of the linkage between "Darwinism" and eugenics as "not pretty" can only apply to the Social Darwinism that appears also to have infected creationists in the early 20th century; and not to the teaching of evolutionary biology, teaching that those creationists passed laws against, and that he also seeks to remove from schools?
I accept that Wells' quote is truthful and accurate.
Since you bring up the "not pretty" actions of the Social Darwinists I guess you disapprove of their programs? How about the views of Galton and Haeckel? Where do you stand there?
You must be wrong in your interpretation of the word "freely" in the Volume 1 passage - since Darwin refers to the "check" as already being in place. There were no eugenics laws in England at the time
This is actually another pretty good point, but it misses the mark as well.
What check to the unfit freely marrying was it that Darwin thought appeared to be in steady action (if indeed he did … see below)?
There can only be two, as I see it: increased mortality and the enforcement of laws. Which do you contend Darwin hoped would be increased indefinitely in halting their reproduction?
Somewhat as an aside, note that Darwin seems to contradict his own proclamations with almost every sentence. For instance, see these statements from the aforementioned chapter 5 of Descent… (a healthy tribute to the father of eugenics, Francis Galton) as to whether or not such a check is actually in place:
A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton,* namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,*(2) they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members
It doesn't seem that he thinks there really is much of a check in steady action. (The rest of this quote will be incorporated at the end of this comment on another point).
Nonetheless, (as to death and law decreasing indefinitely the free marriage of the unfit) Darwin does announce some of these supposed checks, although, as there is an admitted downward tendency one has to wonder again if he thinks they are actually working.
There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency. We have seen that the intemperate suffer from a high rate of mortality, and the extremely profligate leave few offspring. The poorest classes crowd into towns, and it has been proved by Dr. Stark from the statistics of ten years in Scotland,* that at all ages the death-rate is higher in towns than in rural districts, "and during the first five years of life the town death-rate is almost exactly double that of the rural districts."
…
In regard to the moral qualities, some elimination of the worst dispositions is always in progress even in the most civilised nations. Malefactors are executed, or imprisoned for long periods, so that they cannot freely transmit their bad qualities. Melancholic and insane persons are confined, or commit suicide. Violent and quarrelsome men often come to a bloody end. The restless who will not follow any steady occupation- and this relic of barbarism is a great check to civilisation* - emigrate to newly-settled countries; where they prove useful pioneers. Intemperance is so highly destructive, that the expectation of life of the intemperate, at the age of thirty for instance, is only 13.8 years; whilst for the rural labourers of England at the same age it is 40.59 years.*(2) Profligate women bear few children, and profligate men rarely marry; both suffer from disease. In the breeding of domestic animals, the elimination of those individuals, though few in number, which are in any marked manner inferior, is by no means an unimportant element towards success.
Remember, there should be no law or custom that allows the unfit to outproduce the fit. Therefore, none of the above [the impediments by death and law to the unfit freely marrying] ought be curtailed by society.
As we've seen, here are his views on society's actions where they do impinge upon the above checks:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Our beneficent actions, however condoned by our sympathies, are injurious to the race of man.
And as such:
If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, [for which case he has provided evidence] the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world.
…
But as man suffers from the same physical evils as the lower animals, he has no right to expect an immunity from the evils consequent on the struggle for existence. Had he not been subjected during primeval times to natural selection, assuredly he would never have attained to his present rank. Since we see in many parts of the world enormous areas of the most fertile land capable of supporting numerous happy homes, but peopled only by a few wandering savages, it might be argued that the struggle for existence had not been sufficiently severe to force man upwards to his highest standard.
…
With highly civilised nations continued progress depends in a subordinate degree on natural selection; for such nations do not supplant and exterminate one another as do savage tribes. [resulting, as seen above, in a vigorous state of health]
Nevertheless the more intelligent members within the same community will succeed better in the long run than the inferior, and leave a more numerous progeny, and this is a form of natural selection.
[Darwin's assertions above indicate that this is no longer the case in civilised society]
The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through natural selection as one of the most important elements of the social instincts.*
I am well aware that you will try to spin that last paragraph to your favour, but I will show that it supports my case and not yours.
While we ponder Darwin's racism (and the erroneaous assumption earlier that racism is confined to assessment based upon skin colour) I will offer his citing of Greg here:
Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."
But the latter doesn't follow from the former; certainly not in the sense you seek to rely upon, namely that laws rules and customs must positively favour the most able.
You said:
If the laws and customs do not artificially favour the unfit then Darwin is confident that the fit will rise, and with them, society.
Yet you claim that that is not an admission that Darwin didn't favour enforced genetics?
Regardless, you are relying on a passage where Darwin is arguing for the removal of constraints upon sexual selection, to allow free competition, as reflecting support for the imposition of legal constraints upon sexual selection. Something not quite consistent there…
You also argue that the because of the logic (as you see it) of his argument he must have favoured withdrawal of medical care from the weak and unfit, and removal of criminal laws and those designed to permit compulsory treatment for the insane as being checks upon sexual selection. All I can say is that this is an extraordinarily
brave reading given the passage in volume 1 where he explicitly argues that this should not happen.
You said:
I accept that Wells' quote is truthful and accurate.
Since you bring up the "not pretty" actions of the Social Darwinists I guess you disapprove of their programs? How about the views of Galton and Haeckel? Where do you stand there?
I have already made my position on any form of compulsory eugenics clear. Before we run down that blind alley, however, perhaps you could deal with the point I made - repeated below:
Now, on the issue of "Darwinism's" involvement with early 20th century eugenics practices, perhaps we should start with a recognition that nowadays nobody (outside of the lunatic fringes) is arguing for teaching the desirability of, for example, enforced sterilisations for the "defective". The teaching that Wells is opposed to is of plain evolutionary biology. The reasoning appears to be, apart from the claim that it isn't an accurate description of reality, that it leads to racism, eugenics and abortion; and presumably that stopping teaching evolutionary biology would prevent those consequences.
With that in mind, what was going on in the early 20th century in the USA? You had a textbook that taught the desirability of compulspry sterilisation laws - Hunter's Civic Biology"¦. That textbook was the subject of a prosecution in Tennessee; you may have heard of it. A Mr Scopes was prosecuted for teaching from it. But he wasn't prosecuted for teaching compulsory eugenics - that wasn't an offence. He was prosecuted for teaching evolutionary biology.
Following the successful prosecution many states passed similar laws outlawing the teaching of evolutionary biology, which was considered contrary to biblical teaching. Mississippi was one of those states - it passed its law in 1926. So presumably Mississippi's legislators were unsullied by "Darwinism"; that seems to be a fair conclusion to draw, does it not?
So there could be no question of Mississippi's legislators following "Darwinistic" practice and passing a law requiring compulsory sterilisation of "mental defectives", could there? Nosirree, they were all staunch bible-believing god-fearing men, boy, and don't you forget it"¦
Except"¦ In 1927, the SCOTUS approved a compulsory sterilisation law in the case of Buck v Bell. That wasn't a Mississippi case, of course - it came from that well known blue state, Virginia.
Mississippi wouldn't follow that precedent, would it - after all, it had only the year before outlawed the teaching of evolutionary biology. Well, yes, it would - it passed its law in 1928.
In 1942, in Skinner v Oklahoma, the SCOTUS cast doubt on the legality of such laws - but even in 1956, Mississippi was still performing compulsory sterilisations. It didn't repeal its eugenics law until 2001, having renewed it in 1972.
So; are you arguing that all those good ol' creationists in Mississippi in the '20s were actually closet Darwinists? If so, you've got a hard row to hoe to prove it. If not, you've got a different problem, because you are accepting that the eugenics laws were passed non-"Darwinists". I'm not claiming that the members of eugenics societies didn't also accept evolutionary biology; my point is that eugenics as practised in the States could not have been a consequence solely, or even preponderantly, of the teaching of evolutionary biology, because those passing the laws very often explicitly rejected that teaching, as they did in Mississippi. That makes the Wells quote a lie.
Mississippi, of course, didn't stand alone. At the same time and in the same states as you have laws passed making the teaching of evolutionary biology illegal, you have laws passed decreeing eugenics - specifically compulsory sterilisation.
At the same time, you had a craze for Fitter Families competitions at State fairs - rural affairs, generally; where knowledge of stock-breeding was high, and of evolutionary biology pretty much nil.
So where is this "not pretty" link between evolutionary biology and eugenics that isn't shared by society generally?
And what exactly does Darwin's citation of Greg prove?
Comment by Robin Levett — March 22, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Robin,
"And what exactly does Darwin's citation of Greg prove? "
That can be answered in part by the sentence introducing it:
"While we ponder Darwin's racism (and the erroneaous assumption earlier that racism is confined to assessment based upon skin colour) I will offer his citing of Greg here:"
The discussion of racism has centered around blacks and slavery. Darwin and his peers did not limit their use of the term this way, as evidenced by Greg's reference to the Irish race and their practices. Therefore, saying "he was an abolitionist" does not answer the question "was he a racist?"
A better direction from which to explore that question I have already demonstrated: "did he believe that the different races of man were inherently superior/inferior to each other?"
The answer is "yes".
Did he use his knowledge of science to justify this conclusion?
Yes, again.
It also goes to evidence in Darwin's writing which I was alluding to when I asked about Haeckel and Galton.
When one quotes a person they do so for a reason. If they disagree with that person they will say so. If not, they are using that quote as evidence or support of their view, as Darwin did with Greg's racist and eugenicist statement.
On Galton and Haeckel, while you've made your views on compulsory eugenics clear, do you agree they their programs and writings were also racist?
When you agree that they were racist consider the fact that Darwin cited them with favour.
In Darwin's Ode To Galton (Chapter 5) do you see him distancing himself from his cousin's views or quoting him favourably and as support for his own positions?
In the introduction to Descent.. Darwin says of Haeckel:
"This last naturalist [Haeckel]…has recently…published his 'Naturliche Schöpfungs-geschichte,' in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived, I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine."
With Huxley, Darwin agreed that Haeckel was taking the theory of descent toward its logical direction. His concern was that Haeckel was too bold in his presentation and that this could lose adherents to the theory - Darwin was very interested in winning converts.
The only significant area in which he expresses a view different from Haeckel's, as you have previously mentioned, is that he believed that the human race was one species, and that the contrary position was used for justification of slavery.
This does not mitigate the fact that Darwin felt, and agreed with Haeckel, that the "lower races" were more closely related to apes than to the higher races and that, once exterminated, the gap between man and ape would be increased.
Neither does it change the fact that he felt that the lower races were inferior to the higher in morality, reason and intellect, and that these traits were heritable, at least in part.
You also mention Social Darwinism and its "not pretty" aspects.
As Darwin favourably cited Haeckel, and the father of Eugenics, Galton, he also mentioned, and called a "great philosopher", the father of Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, in Descent….
He was in no way distancing himself from these men.
Once again you bring up the spread of Eugenics in American states more than half a century after the publishing of Origins… and many decades after Descent….
This thinking, the scientific justification of racism and of selection, was by then widespread. It was through Darwinsm that the Eugenics program was inspired and founded, and through Darwinsim that it was spread and accepted. That some jurisdictions lost interest in its founding pillar after the fact does not impact its history.
At the same time you mention the spread of the idea of "fit families" at state fairs. And who was advertising this concept at such fairs?
The American Eugenics Society of course. Founded and upheld by Darwinists, on the principles of Darwinism. http://www.uctv.tv/library-tes...
As recently as 1936 Julian Huxley wrote:
True that, thanks to the genius of Darwin and his cousin Galton, the notion of evolutionary improvement through selection has provided a firm scientific base for eugenics, and that in recent years distinct progress has been made in applying the triumphal discoveries of modern genetics to the human species: yet for the bulk of scientists, eugenics is still hardly reckoned a science.
Interesting that the descendants of Darwin and Huxley wound up in this movement. Leonard, and who would know better, though he was doing with evolution exactly what his father would have wanted.
I haven't time for a full answer at present, and in any event a full answer is for the moment unnecessary.
May I suggest that in the meantime you buy - or borrow, if you prefer - a copy of Descent, and read the context of the passage you have quoted, so that you can explain why you think that Darwin agreed with Greg's description of the Irish?
Comment by Robin Levett — March 23, 2007 @ 9:58 am
I have read it, Robin.
Thanks for your advice and your time.
The ostensible context of Chapter 5 is to show that man, his moral character and values, and his tendency toward civilization are the product of natural selection.
Darwin is trying to establish this in conjunction with the sexual selection case he has to build and against the observations of his opponents.
The quote you like starts with his hat-tip to Greg and Galton (as well as Wallace).
Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,* and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.*(2) Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Note three things:
1)his case is dependent in large part on his agreement with Greg
2) the modern savage is the most closely related to the semi-human progenitor
3) Natural selection, is responsible for our rise, our health, and the impulses which have formed our civilization (this will be important in a second).
The next passage:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected. In every country in which a large standing army is kept up, the finest young men are taken by the conscription or are enlisted. They are thus exposed to early death during war, are often tempted into vice, and are prevented from marrying during the prime of life. On the other hand the shorter and feebler men, with poor constitutions, are left at home, and consequently have a much better chance of marrying and propagating their kind.*
You say "look, he doesn't want us to do away with these institutions", but you do so wearing rose-coloured glasses.
That aid is incidental to sympathy. It is an accidental or unnecessary byproduct of a social instinct which was honed to a superfluous degree by Natural selection, not by any Divine force or toward any teleological end. It is not a basic good.
We must not check it, he says, lest we be less noble.
But there is no reason to accept that we must not check it:
1) if we don't there are a multitude of bad effects
2) our nobility is another accidental byproduct of evolution
3) he provides us an example of a doctor doing harm to do good and mentions that any neglect would bear a contingent good
4) he shows some of the undesired results of not checking our sympathy after saying that it would result in evil (evils just as those which he earlier told us are not to be avoided)
5) he does his take on the checked freedom of the unfit to marry. I am more than satisfied with my previous treatment of this.
Next Darwin reassures us that his general theory of evolution, and especially the mechanism of Natural Selection are true, and have brought us to the current point of development. This although it is not obvious and, in fact, the case that civilization is checking Natural selection is compelling.
As he moves to examining the case of the development, advantage and heritability of the intellect he again devotes much space to Galton.
The same for the next passage on mankind's moral qualities.
In regard to the moral qualities, some elimination of the worst dispositions is always in progress even in the most civilised nations. Malefactors are executed, or imprisoned for long periods, so that they cannot freely transmit their bad qualities. Melancholic and insane persons are confined, or commit suicide. Violent and quarrelsome men often come to a bloody end. The restless who will not follow any steady occupation- and this relic of barbarism is a great check to civilisation* - emigrate to newly-settled countries; where they prove useful pioneers. Intemperance is so highly destructive, that the expectation of life of the intemperate, at the age of thirty for instance, is only 13.8 years; whilst for the rural labourers of England at the same age it is 40.59 years.*(2) Profligate women bear few children, and profligate men rarely marry; both suffer from disease. In the breeding of domestic animals, the elimination of those individuals, though few in number, which are in any marked manner inferior, is by no means an unimportant element towards success.
So a few paragraphs after telling us that there are checks in place (restricted freedom of marriage of the unfit) here he describes in more detail some of those checks.
Review:
Natural selection has brought us to our heights.
It is also responsible for our moral qualities.
Our civilization is impeding Natural Selection to a degree (which it must not do, remember previous admonitions that we endure the severest struggle even at the peril of obvious evils).
We know that the propagation of the unfit is bad.
We know how it is being checked, and how we are interfering with this.
(by the way, we also see Darwin is a racist - modern savages being the most closely related and least advanced beyond our pre-human ancestors).
Now, the context of the passage with Greg at the end:
With civilised nations, as far as an advanced standard of morality, and an increased number of fairly good men are concerned, natural selection apparently effects but little; though the fundamental social instincts were originally thus gained. But I have already said enough, whilst treating of the lower races, on the causes which lead to the advance of morality, namely, the approbation of our fellow-men- the strengthening of our sympathies by habit- example and imitation- reason- experience, and even self-interest- instruction during youth, and religious feelings. A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton,* namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan,*(2) they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."
1) Natural selection may not be obviously at work in the realm of morality ( a knock against the theory itself) but it is responsible in the first place for our social instincts
2) The checks to the marriage and propagation of the unfit are, in fact, not really working.
3) The Irish are a race apart from the Scots, and an inferior one at that.
Darwin next moves on to telling us that
There are, however, some checks to this downward tendency. We have seen that the intemperate suffer from a high rate of mortality, and the extremely profligate leave few offspring.
He doesn't say Greg is wrong, not about anything here, but merely suggest more checks (the early deaths of the unfit).
And, once again, the warning:
If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilised nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at
March 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Oh, my. I guess they didn't notice yet because they're already boycotting Starbucks over Wesley Smith's relatively benign quote. Which nicely illustrates the extremist's dilemma: how do you ratchet up the outrage when you've already spent it on a lesser offense?
Comment by mb — March 6, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Well, the reaction on Pharyngula to the original quote was hardly one of "outrage". This new quote is quite simply, however, fraudulent. Is there any reason why "Darwinism's" modern defenders should not be outraged?
Comment by Robin Levett — March 6, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Robin:
Is the following it? If it is, it is similar to some allegations leveled at ID and religion. I think they are counterproductive and a wiser course is to focus on data centered issues.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Oh my, I just love it!
Comment by kornbelt888 — March 6, 2007 @ 3:06 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Announcing one's intention to boycott the company for having the effrontery to print the quote (and calling its author a "vacuous twit" in the bargain) bespeaks outrage, in my opinion. But we're talking about PZ, who lives in a state of perpetual outrage, so you are correct inasmuch as the comments do not stand out above the usual level of invective.
In what way is the quote fraudulent? I presume you do not mean it was not the work of Wells, so it must be that you believe that the content is a lie. The full quote is:
As an argument against the scientific validity of Darwin's theory, this would be a fallacy (an appeal to negative consequences); but as an argument against an ideology, which is what Darwinism unquestionably is as used by militant atheists such as PZ and company in support of their anti-religious views, it is perfectly valid. In any case, it is clearly an expression of Dr. Wells' opinion, and therefore, by definition, cannot be a lie.
Comment by mb — March 6, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
mb- That was one eloquent post.
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Actually, its all a huge experiment in mind control. Drink the drugged, arm-and-a-leg-and-a-major-organ overpriced coffee and the next thing you read begins to seem extremely reasonable.
So, those who are outraged must be doing it all wrong. Drink the coffee FIRST, and THEN read the quote …. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA:twisted:
Comment by CJYman — March 6, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Today must not be my day … I'm gettin' caught up in THE FILTER at UD AND at TT.:???:
Comment by CJYman — March 6, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I love the title of this thread. Delicious.
Comment by Douglas — March 6, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Bradford, firstly you're right in saying that my point was that the quote was dishonest.
Moving on:
You mean where he says:
I guess I'm just going to have to boycott that overpriced Starbucks stuff. Instead, I'll frequent my local coffeeshop, which is run by a consortium of local evangelical churches.
Damn.
Like I said, coffee must be evil.
Followed by (when others suggested a boycott was over-reacting):
I guess I was too subtle. I should have mentioned that I think our local coffeeshop is much more evil than Starbucks, but I'm still going there. Did you know I don't like religion?
Doesn't that actually mean anything to you?
As for your defence of the slur:
what you are apparently saying is that PZ defends eugenics, abortion and racism. Abortion I'll give you, but that isn't an issue of Darwinism - if only because PZ isn't a Darwinist (strictu sensu). It's an issue of human rights. I challenge you to find anything in PZ's writings that defends racism and eugenics. I could find you plenty that opposes both.
As for your cop-out:
you can be more honest than that. Wells implies that "Darwinism" - which he equates to evolutionary biology, the science which he was ordered by his religious masters to study so as to attack it from within - is an ideology which supports racism and eugenics (which it does not). He does not distinguish between evolutionary biology the science and "Darwinism", his imagined ideology - he is going for the science.
Darwin himself, for what it's worth, was adamantly opposed to both racism and eugenics, as was TH Huxley. Nothing in the science - since it is a study of what is, not what ought to be - supports either.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 6, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
As usual, you get some ID wacko complaining that science isn't open for discussion — while the ID wacko isn't open for discussion at all, not even comments.
Mote? Get that log out first, then come let us know.
I'm open to discussion any time with Wells. He just has to go under oath. I'm tired of his prevarications.
Comment by edarrell — March 6, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
March 6th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Robin, you're responding to me while quoting mb. I was guilty though, of describing mb as eloquent.:smile:
Comment by Bradford — March 6, 2007 @ 10:41 pm
March 7th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Wow, two quotes from fellows of a think tank based in Seattle make it on onto the cups of a coffee company also based in Seattle. What are the odds of that?
Comment by KC — March 7, 2007 @ 12:12 am
March 7th, 2007 at 2:48 am
Bradford:
Oops; my apologies as appropriate. I added the name at the end - I suspect that I paged back up to the top of mb's comment to check the name and overdid it.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 7, 2007 @ 2:48 am
March 7th, 2007 at 4:32 am
lol, I like these Orwellian spins.
Robin, you are mistaken.
The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd edition, Vol. I, pages 205-6
The Descent of man, Vol. II, pages 438-9
These are plainly utterances of eugenicist.
But not all is lost Robin, you can always claim he denounced these views on his death bed.
Comment by inunison — March 7, 2007 @ 4:32 am
March 7th, 2007 at 4:36 am
KC,
Hey, you're not trying to imply there was design involved, as though there was some sort of intentional, conscious, connection, are you? Because if you are, then as we all know or are learning, you are a closet Creationist, and deserving of PZ Myers' wrath. Until you show me some research, with an actual model and some genuine mathematical probability calculations, the only scientific conclusion is that what you mention is merely the result of random chance.
Comment by Douglas — March 7, 2007 @ 4:36 am
March 7th, 2007 at 5:57 am
inunison, so you think that you have the only edition of the book?
Would it kill you to back up what you say with a reference?
After all, Darwin denied what you say exactly, in Descent of Man. Guess the page.
Comment by edarrell — March 7, 2007 @ 5:57 am
March 7th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Now Douglas, you aren't implying that the DI acts at random, are you? Come to think of it though, that would explain the quality of their research program.
Comment by KC — March 7, 2007 @ 6:48 am
March 7th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Inunison:
Spins? What else does:
"At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.
He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.
Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle."
(Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. - at http://www.tparents.org/librar...)
mean? Although it is fair to say that he was selected, rather than ordered; which doesn't really help his credibility.
As for your claim that:
I too would like to see a more helpful reference - perhaps a quote? I think you are referring firstly to the passage which appears at pages 168-169 of the online text version of The Descent (at http://darwin-online.org.uk/co...) - which reads:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.
which is hardly a clarion call for eugenic policies, since it expressly argues that such policies would be "a certain and great present evil."
As for the volume 2 quote - perhaps you could assist?
I don't tend to rely upon stories of deathbed renunciations - I leave that to dishonest creationists.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 7, 2007 @ 8:56 am
March 7th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Robin Levett:
Er… wrong. On Darwin's racism TalkOrigins offers DDs three possible defenses when this is brought up, but they are choreographed hand-waves, not denials. Because Darwin's racism is a plain fact, by his own writings. TO's three brush-offs:
1. All Englishmen at the time were racists.
2. The term "favored races" doesn't mean favored races.
3. Darwin's racism is irrelevant to the validity of his evidence.
I like #3 because it specifically dismisses ANY person's "views" and "opinions" as irrelevant to whether or not Lamarckian pangenesis (Darwin's version of variation) and natural selection are the sole means of evolution. Too bad that the average DD applies this selectively to defenders, and never to their opponents - whose "views" and "opinions" are their whole reason for living on bile.
As for eugenics views, Darwin liked 'em fine. His brother belonged to the Whig circle promoting Malthusian-inspired "poor laws" reform to discourage the poor from having children, and his cousin Francis Galton invented both the word 'eugenics' and the societies dedicated to promoting it. His descendants are involved in the societies to this day. In the Name of Darwin.
Comment by Joy — March 7, 2007 @ 9:57 am
March 7th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Joy:
You've asserted Darwin's racism and support for eugenics. Perhaps you can provide some evidence for those assertions. As to the claim that "he liked [eugenics] fine" perhaps when producing your evidence you could explain why he said what he did in Descent, quoted by me above.
On racism; accepting the evidence then available to him as to the facts of difference is not what I consider racism. Believing that that fact justifies treating the person in front of you differently is racism.
I freely concede that the evidence available to Darwin suggested that "the Negro" was not intellectually on a par with "more civilised races"; he cites his sources in Descent. He was not though committed to that evidence. My point is that if he had the evidence we have today - that racial characteristics are purely superficial, and that in any event the "races" shade into one another to the extent that it is difficult even consistently to distinguish "racial characteristics" - he would have accepted that evidence and revised his views as to the facts accordingly.
He would have been a supporter of the NAACP, not the KKK; just as he was a committed abolitionist, supporting the North against the South.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 7, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
March 7th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Go here for a reading of the Descent passage in the comments at Uncommon Descent.
Comment by Pez — March 7, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
March 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
But of course it would have been entirely out of the question, a psychological impossibility, for someone like Robin to come to the conclusion that Darwin was wrong in this instance.
Think about Darwin's reference here to the singular folly of "allowing his worst animals to breed."
It is to be expected that someone who is religiously committed to cult of Darwin would see this passage as coming from "Darwin who was adamantly opposed to both racism and eugenics."
As for the Vol. II quote here it is:
As for Dr. Wells, issue that I have a problem with is not his credibility but your ridiculous claim that "he was ordered by his religious masters to study so as to attack it from within." You apparently retracted that statement, thanks.
Comment by inunison — March 7, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
March 7th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
inunison:
Exactly what do you know about me that leads to that instant psychiatric diagnosis?
But I'm an atheist…
Thank you for providing the Book 2 quote. I still don't see any support there for eugenics - or, more precisely, the manifestation of eugenics to which Wells' quote, as with much creationist libel, has tried to tie "Darwinism". The idea that choosing your mate carefully, and having children or not according to the likely outcome, may improve the human race is one thing; sterilising "mental defectives" is quote another. It is the latter which is intended to be invoked by Wells, not the former - but it is the former which derives any support from Descent, and the latter which Darwin condemns in Volume 1.
I actually don't see what is ridiculous about the claim, given the Wells' quote I have cited; there is a very fine line between being selected, and being ordered, by your cult leader to "prepare [oneself] for battle".
Comment by Robin Levett — March 7, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
March 8th, 2007 at 3:02 am
Robin, denying the obvious, you perfectly fit the category that I described.
When prominent socio-biologists like Spenser, Galton and Wilson read Darwin (some of them knew him personally) and come to the same conclusion as I did, what am I to think of your position? You may not like the fact that many leading Darwinists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries promoted infanticide, involuntary euthanasia, and racial extermination, but they did (and some do it to this day, see link in the post by Pez). You are of course free to argue that these Darwinists were wrong to apply Darwinism in this way, but then you should be criticizing these Darwinists.
Comment by inunison — March 8, 2007 @ 3:02 am
March 8th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Inunison:
The issue isn't unspecified "leading Darwinists", but Darwin. What have you got to show that he promoted infanticide, involuntary euthanasia and racial extermination?
Oh, and Pez doesn't touch the quote from volume 1 of Descent - for obvious reasons.
Of course I will criticise those - creationist and darwinist alike - who advocated and advocate (for example) enforced sterilisation such as occurred inter alia in early 20th century USA. You may want to consider exactly what was being criticised as illegal in Hunter's A Civic Biology…, and what was not, in the Scopes trial.
You might also consider the implications of the fact that the many laws prohibiting the teaching of evolutionary theory in early 20th century USA were being passed by the very same legislatures that were passing compulsory sterilisation laws. Mississippi, for example, passed its anti-evolution law after Scopes, in 1926; and its compulsory sterilisation law in 1928, after Buck v Bell.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 8, 2007 @ 10:03 am
March 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Hi Robin,
Do you hold Christianity responsible for ill-deeds performed by those who affiliated themselves with the teachings of Christ?
Comment by Doug — March 8, 2007 @ 11:16 am
March 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
The Starbuck's quote:
Robin's response:
It is fraudulent.
The demonstration:
No it isn't.
Robin on Darwin:
The demonstration:
No he wasn't.
Robin's follow-up:
1) The issue is Wells's quote, which was not fraudulent, was about Darwinism, not Darwin.
2) Darwin was a racist and eugenicist.
Robin:
What obvious reasons?
And why is this necessary when the demonstration of Darwin's eugenics beliefs is complete from the book 2 quote?
The quote from Volume 1:
Here we see that the check which will curtail these bad effects in European society is constraining the freedom of the unfit in marrying. And one would hope that this check would be increased indefinitely. Voluntary means are suggested, of course, but the previous quotes reveal that if legislators were made aware of the so-called facts of 19th century biology then they would do good service to ensure that laws reflected the need for the superior to outproduce the inferior. Mankind can and should improve his moral and intellectual capabilites (and, therefore, the health of his nation) through breeding and laws should be passed to aid toward this.
And, if you continue in the chapter you find that the natural selection this would mimic is credited for the advance of superior nations like the United States, and that the high quality people in Canada are those coming from western Europe.
As he concludes the entire work in volume 2 Darwin makes clear that he is addressing the "advancement of the welfare of mankind" when he discusses these infringements on the freedom to marry and to reproduce.
And lest you think that anything Darwin calls "˜evil' he also thinks should necessarily be avoided consider this:
There should be open competition between men, the most able should rear the most offspring, man must remain in a severe struggle that he should advance to a still higher condition. If law and custom are impeding this they must be changed.
This is eugenics.
Comment by Pez — March 8, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
March 9th, 2007 at 5:21 am
So what if some Darwinists were in favor of eugenics? Some people here seem to think that by smearing Darwin, his theory somehow becomes less valid. That's like saying that Hisroshima makes nuclear physics less accurate. Or that Jezus didn't exist because some christians used the bible to argue in favor of slavery.
Comment by Raevmo — March 9, 2007 @ 5:21 am
March 9th, 2007 at 6:07 am
Raevmo:
The issue here is that some proponents of Darwinism deny major influence on eugenicists that Darwin and Darwinism in general had/has. That is not smearing Darwin or Darwinism and is not to say that they are evil. For me it is interesting that some Darwinists react in the same way some Christians would react if you criticize their Saint Protector.
Comment by inunison — March 9, 2007 @ 6:07 am
March 9th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Raevmo:
Yet you will find that neither nuclear physicists nor many mainstream Christians deny those past wrongs but instead acknowledge them and lament that they happened. For the most part, it seems that Darwinists want to brush this under the rug rather than tackling it head on and condemning the practice of eugenics (of course, there are certainly exceptions).
Robin:
I find it interesting that you make this statement because it is good reason to assert that ethics are going to have a hard go finding any legitimate grounding in a worldview where MET reigns supreme if it is descriptive rather than prescriptive, something that ethics desperately needs. But that's of course rather off-topic.
Comment by thechristiancynic — March 9, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
March 10th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Pez claimed:
Nope. I was challenged on my description of Darwin as opposed to racism and (enforced) eugenics; that makes Darwin the issue; although I will deal with the claims against "Darwinism".
Untrue in the senses of those words that I have been using throughout. He argued in Descent for the proposition that all of humanity was one species; an explicitly anti-racist argument, since he was arguing against the claim that humanity was made up of several species, which was used to justify slavery. You may have missed it in your no doubt intensive reading of and about Darwin, but he was an abolitionist.
He recognised the desirability, if the human race were to be improved, of voluntary eugenics; he was adamantly opposed to enforced eugenic practices, such as enforced sterilisation of "mental defectives". That practice will feature later in this post…
For the same reason you didn't quote the following, even though you quoted the rest of the very same paragraph:
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil.
That is, because it shows that Darwin was opposed to compulsory eugenics. And that wouldn't fit your thesis.
Have you read Voyage?
Now, on the issue of "Darwinism's" involvement with early 20th century eugenics practices, perhaps we should start with a recognition that nowadays nobody (outside of the lunatic fringes) is arguing for teaching the desirability of, for example, enforced sterilisations for the "defective". The teaching that Wells is opposed to is of plain evolutionary biology. The reasoning appears to be, apart from the claim that it isn't an accurate description of reality, that it leads to racism, eugenics and abortion; and presumably that stopping teaching evolutionary biology would prevent those consequences.
With that in mind, what was going on in the early 20th century in the USA? You had a textbook that taught the desirability of compulspry sterilisation laws - Hunter's Civic Biology…. That textbook was the subject of a prosecution in Tennessee; you may have heard of it. A Mr Scopes was prosecuted for teaching from it. But he wasn't prosecuted for teaching compulsory eugenics - that wasn't an offence. He was prosecuted for teaching evolutionary biology.
Following the successful prosecution many states passed similar laws outlawing the teaching of evolutionary biology, which was considered contrary to biblical teaching. Mississippi was one of those states - it passed its law in 1926. So presumably Mississippi's legislators were unsullied by "Darwinism"; that seems to be a fair conclusion to draw, does it not?
So there could be no question of Mississippi's legislators following "Darwinistic" practice and passing a law requiring compulsory sterilisation of "mental defectives", could there? Nosirree, they were all staunch bible-believing god-fearing men, boy, and don't you forget it…
Except… In 1927, the SCOTUS approved a compulsory sterilisation law in the case of Buck v Bell. That wasn't a Mississippi case, of course - it came from that well known blue state, Virginia.
Mississippi wouldn't follow that precedent, would it - after all, it had only the year before outlawed the teaching of evolutionary biology. Well, yes, it would - it passed its law in 1928.
In 1942, in Skinner v Oklahoma, the SCOTUS cast doubt on the legality of such laws - but even in 1956, Mississippi was still performing compulsory sterilisations. It didn't repeal its eugenics law until 2001, having renewed it in 1972.
So; are you arguing that all those good ol' creationists in Mississippi in the '20s were actually closet Darwinists? If so, you've got a hard row to hoe to prove it. If not, you've got a different problem, because you are accepting that the eugenics laws were passed non-"Darwinists". I'm not claiming that the members of eugenics societies didn't also accept evolutionary biology; my point is that eugenics as practised in the States could not have been a consequence solely, or even preponderantly, of the teaching of evolutionary biology, because those passing the laws very often explicitly rejected that teaching, as they did in Mississippi. That makes the Wells quote a lie.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 10, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
March 10th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
To the claim:
Darwin was both a racist and a eugenicist.
Robin Levant responds:
How about in the sense of the dictionary?
According to thes, and his writings, Darwin was both.
Eugenics by way of legislation is not quite voluntary.
Robin Levant:
You don't get to use your own private senses of words if you are going to call this quote a fraud and a lie.
It is historically factual regardless of your spin and your red herrings about racism independent of evolutionary biology do not change that fact.
Comment by Pez — March 10, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
March 10th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Sorry Robin.
Levett, not Levant.
Comment by Pez — March 10, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
March 11th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Pez:
Well, my Chambers gives the following definition for racialism (which it defines as identical to racism):
race hatred, rivalry; belief in inherent superiority of some races over others, usu. with implication of a right to rule; discriminative treatment based on such belief
Interestingly enough, you appear to have missed out the other definition from the source you used:
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
which appears to match precisely the definition I am using. Funny that you should miss that definition out, isn't it?
Having said that, all dictionary definitions are culturally dependent. In some circumstances, the bare definition you gave would be sufficient - provided you understand that that is a definition accepted at a time when the scientific evidence is strongly against the belief that racial differences are purely superficial, and that there are no boundaries between races, but gradations. That makes the definition inapplicable to Darwin and his time. Insofar as there was evidence then available it suggests that there were differences in mental and physical abilities - and he cites that evidence in Descent.
To claim that that makes Darwin racist is like arguing that it was unscientific of him to accept blending and Lamarckian inheritance. Since he was unaware of either Mendel's studies or DNA, which are the basis for rejection of both concepts, it is Whiggish to make that claim.
Again, you are ignoring the fact that Darwin was arguing against the racist/slaver position.
As for eugenics: to be fair, you have quoted the entire definition on this occasion - although you appear to have missed the reference in the followup, of which you quote part, to early 20th century eugenics laws in the USA.
There is nothing "not pretty" (Wells's words) about studying hereditary improvement of the human race through selective breeding; what is "not pretty" is a proposal to act upon the claim that it is possible by imposing laws designed to effect such an improvement. I agree with you that "Eugenics by way of legislation is not quite voluntary"; hence my criticism of the legislation passed, often by legislators who rejected the teachings of evolutionary biology, in early 20th century America.
Where we part company is in the claim that Darwin supported such legislation. He did not. He explicitly rejected negative eugenics legislation in Volume 1 of Descent; and it is only be a tortured reading of the Volume 2 passage that you can derive any support at all for a claim that he supported positive eugenic legislation. That reading must however be wrong. He argues that if (breeding) competition between humans is truly free and unconstrained by law or custom, the most able will win out. That clearly excludes the imposition of restrictions by legislation.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 11, 2007 @ 6:34 am
March 11th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Robin,
I didn't leave anything out. I quoted complete and sufficient definitions.
Each added nuance is just that, another way to think of and use the word.
Racism does not require racial hatred and discrimination, and nobody but you would claim that it must.
Your Chambers is just fine:
You say:
This is a false dilemma.
It is entirely possible to be both scientific and racist. In fact, one could justify racism scientifically.
Again, you are ignoring the fact that Darwin was arguing against the racist/slaver position.
No I'm not - I think that was entirely commendable of him I am not claiming that he was some kind of villain.
On the other hand, I am against vivisection and cruelty to animals, but that does not mean I think they are our equals.
You got he first line right but draw a faulty conclusion.
If they are to be unconstrained by law then legislation must either be passed which removes those constraints or else be removed when it provides those constraints.
If this weren't the case he would not be making an appeal to legislators to learn about biology and do good service toward that end.
This reading is not tortured but accurate.
If you applied the same kind of critical eye to Darwin that you do Wells you would se this.
Comment by Pez — March 11, 2007 @ 9:37 am
March 11th, 2007 at 9:49 am
And now that we have confirmed the role of the legislators, let's take a quick peek back at your preferred reference, Volume I:
Comment by Pez — March 11, 2007 @ 9:49 am
March 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Wow, that took a lot of stretching. Main problem with this quote: Wells does not say that "eugenics, abortion and racism" are connected to Darwinism; it says Darwinism is connected to them. Therefore, even granting the other content here, it does not make Wells a liar in the least, especially giving that Wells didn't even cite how these things are connected to Darwinism (which makes for a nice, pithy quote that isn't easily debunked - I gather that's the point).
I will say this as sort of devil's advocate - I can understand why Darwinists would want to maintain that eugenics, abortion, and racism are not something that naturally arises from MET, in much the same way that Christians maintain that things like the Crusades and the Inquisitions were improper uses of Christian doctrine and authority. However, as Robin so aptly pointed out, it is much harder to get an "ought" from an "is", and so I think this poses a bigger problem for Darwinism.
Comment by thechristiancynic — March 11, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
March 11th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Robin earlier asked if "you" had read Voyage of the Beagle. With good cause — in that book Darwin describes quite eloquently his anti-racist views, and makes several soundly anti-racist observations. One should recall that the nearly-fatal-to-the-relationship argument between Darwin and FitzRoy was over FitzRoy's claim that Africans were somehow different from Europeans, and therefore that slavery was justified. Darwin disagreed, violently, on all ends of that argument. So, claims that Darwin was racist are not only wrong, they are crass lies that ignore the facts.
Darwin's letters also correspond to the debates in England over the legality of slavery. Darwin was in favor of abolition at almost any cost. In point of fact, the entire Wedgewood and Darwin families were opposed, and much of their fortune supported the abolition of slavery in the English empire, not least because it was racist.
So we have Darwin's direct disavowals of racism, his direct opposition to slavery and legal racism, and his putting his money where the arguments were.
To claim that Darwin was racist is simply false. Perhaps some people have not read much of Darwin, but no one who has read much of Darwin could make the claim he was racist without malice.
Then we get to the definition above: Darwin always argued that, in their native habitats, aboriginals (usually of color) were vastly superior to Europeans.
Seriously, have you read Darwin?
Comment by edarrell — March 11, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
March 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Robin Levett doesn't draw the link well enough. Racists were opposed to Darwin and evolution because Darwinian theories clearly suggested that there is no zoological basis for slavery or racism, that racism on the basis of skin color is wholly unjustified. That's what Darwin wrote. If one studies the sermons of the 1865 to 1905 era, one finds many Southern preachers taking issue with Darwin, not because Darwin favored racism, but because his writings removed any hope of a claim for scientifically-based racism.
I know y'all spend countless hours in your laboratories, but didn't you take history in high school?
Comment by edarrell — March 11, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
March 11th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Let's be clear: Do you favor an end to incest laws and those laws that prevent certain consanguinous marriages? Is that what you mean by either "racism" or "eugenics?"
Will you make the case that such laws are unjust? Can you?
Comment by edarrell — March 11, 2007 @ 3:08 pm
March 11th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Edarrel writes:
Indeed. As Desmond and Moore wrote in their biography of Darwin:
Comment by KC — March 11, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
March 11th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
thechristiancynic, you said:
Well, actually, if you read the whole quote, you find that Wells is referring to racism, abortion and eugenics as the "baleful social consequences" of "Darwinism"; so he is saying that they are connected to "Darwinism", as well as the other way around.
Why the fact that you can't get an "ought" from an "is" should be a problem for evolutionary biology, I simply have no idea; evolutionary biology isn't in the business of trying to do so.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 11, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
March 11th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Pez, you said;
No; he reaches no conclusion on the point in Descent; and he has told us elsewhere that it isn't clear whether they are injurious or not:
Regardless, here he is arguing for removal of the laws against consanguineous marriage - or at least a rational appraisal of them, unconstrained by knee-jerk reaction from the legislator.
He certainly isn't arguing for an extension of the existing laws - he was after all married to his cousin, the closest degree still permitted by the laws extant at the time.
But the latter doesn't follow from the former; certainly not in the sense you seek to rely upon, namely that laws rules and customs must positively favour the most able.
As for the Volume 1 quote, you claim that:
No, we don't. Here we see that the check that will curtail these bad effects is the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; freely here not meaning unconstrained by law. "Freely" here is used in the same sense as in, say "Wells freely uses quotemines and distortions of the sense of quotations to make his dubious points". That is clear from the rest of the sentence, followign the semi-colon, where he says this check might be indefinitely increased…by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage; not "being constrained from marriage", but "refraining from" marriage.
Comment by Robin Levett — March 11, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
March 12th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
edarrel joins Robin in treating racism and the endorsement of slavery or racial cruelty as coterminous. They are not. One can be both a racist and an abolitionist, as Darwin was, and as many more are - with far less noble reasons than Darwin's.
edarrel implies that Darwin's theory logically precluded racism. It didn't. Did you edit that comment? Wasn't it about unilinealism or monogenism before? Poor memory on my part.
Nonetheless, many held to Darwin's theory and were racists, and neither is race defined merely by skin colour, as you imply in your response.
In case the original point was as I remember, note that polygenism may have been one tool in the kit of some slavers, but it wasn't a necessary one.
One could hold that all of mankind is descended from the same, lower-animal, ancestor and hold that there were gradations of quality in the human race. Like Darwin, he could place Caucasians as higher, more advanced, more intellectual, and Australians as lower and closer to the primeval stock.He could think one naturally tended toward more intelligence and greater morality than the other, and place one as more akin to gorillas.
This is racism.
Robin:
You make a good point on consanguineous marriages. I was a little careless in trying to make the point concisely, but I did expect the logic of the preceding points to carry their due weight. That logic is laid out by Darwin in the passages cited.
The unfit should not breed because that is injurious for society. This can be determined by a study of biology. Legislators should be aware of the rules of biology. Legislators should act in accordance with the betterment of society. No rules or laws should exist which give the unfit an advantage over the sound in reproducing. If such laws or customs exist they should come to an end. Society should better itself through policies and habits encouraging better breeding.
This is eugenics.
As you say
Whatever he was doing he was applying the knowledge of biology and inheritance to politics and society.
Same here:
If the laws and customs do not artificially favour the unfit then Darwin is confident that the fit will rise, and with them, society.
On the use of the word "freely" you are mistaken. You make a poor analogy in your insult to Wells. Grammatically, "freely" can not mean the same in both cases. If it did, it would apply equally to the unfit as the sound, or would entail the changing of laws, which you say Darwin was against.
What does it mean that the unfit should not marry as freely as the sound? Is he saying that the unfit should ponder their decisions carefully while the sound should marry indiscriminately? Of course not; this is exactly what Galton and Darwin lamented in the upper classes.
Is he saying that the sound should somehow be unfettered from constraints against marriage? As you imply, perhaps he thought incestuous marriages should be more prevalent. Or maybe he felt that polygamy or serial marriages ought to be encouraged. But this would be a freedom for both classes, and if it weren't, it would be precisely the government interference that you say he was against.
No, if the unfit are to marry less freely than the sound they must do so by some constraint. And whatever that constraint (even if it is merely the education and guilting of the poor), and whatever the practicality, it, and the thought that condones it, constitutes eugenics.
Comment by Pez — March 12, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
March 13th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Pez:
I'm pleased that you now accept that Darwin was not arguing for enforced eugenics.
Do you also accept that Wells's description of the linkage between "Darwinism" and eugenics as "not pretty" can only apply to the Social Darwinism that appears also to have infected creationists in the early 20th century; and not to the teaching of evolutionary biology, teaching that those creationists passed laws against, and that he also seeks to remove from schools?
You must be wrong in your interpretation of the word "freely" in the Volume 1 passage - since Darwin refers to the "check" as already being in place. There were no eugenics laws in England at the time…
Comment by Robin Levett — March 13, 2007 @ 7:22 pm
March 14th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Robin,
I make no admission and contend exactly the opposite.
What I have demonstrated is that even with your own generous reading you still accept that Darwin was a eugenicist.
I am pleased by this acceptance.
I accept that Wells' quote is truthful and accurate.
Since you bring up the "not pretty" actions of the Social Darwinists I guess you disapprove of their programs? How about the views of Galton and Haeckel? Where do you stand there?
This is actually another pretty good point, but it misses the mark as well.
What check to the unfit freely marrying was it that Darwin thought appeared to be in steady action (if indeed he did … see below)?
There can only be two, as I see it: increased mortality and the enforcement of laws. Which do you contend Darwin hoped would be increased indefinitely in halting their reproduction?
Somewhat as an aside, note that Darwin seems to contradict his own proclamations with almost every sentence. For instance, see these statements from the aforementioned chapter 5 of Descent… (a healthy tribute to the father of eugenics, Francis Galton) as to whether or not such a check is actually in place:
It doesn't seem that he thinks there really is much of a check in steady action. (The rest of this quote will be incorporated at the end of this comment on another point).
Nonetheless, (as to death and law decreasing indefinitely the free marriage of the unfit) Darwin does announce some of these supposed checks, although, as there is an admitted downward tendency one has to wonder again if he thinks they are actually working.
Remember, there should be no law or custom that allows the unfit to outproduce the fit. Therefore, none of the above [the impediments by death and law to the unfit freely marrying] ought be curtailed by society.
As we've seen, here are his views on society's actions where they do impinge upon the above checks:
Our beneficent actions, however condoned by our sympathies, are injurious to the race of man.
And as such:
I am well aware that you will try to spin that last paragraph to your favour, but I will show that it supports my case and not yours.
While we ponder Darwin's racism (and the erroneaous assumption earlier that racism is confined to assessment based upon skin colour) I will offer his citing of Greg here:
Comment by Pez — March 14, 2007 @ 2:32 am
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:32 am
Pez:
I said:
You said:
Yet you claim that that is not an admission that Darwin didn't favour enforced genetics?
Regardless, you are relying on a passage where Darwin is arguing for the removal of constraints upon sexual selection, to allow free competition, as reflecting support for the imposition of legal constraints upon sexual selection. Something not quite consistent there…
You also argue that the because of the logic (as you see it) of his argument he must have favoured withdrawal of medical care from the weak and unfit, and removal of criminal laws and those designed to permit compulsory treatment for the insane as being checks upon sexual selection. All I can say is that this is an extraordinarily
brave reading given the passage in volume 1 where he explicitly argues that this should not happen.
You said:
I have already made my position on any form of compulsory eugenics clear. Before we run down that blind alley, however, perhaps you could deal with the point I made - repeated below:
Mississippi, of course, didn't stand alone. At the same time and in the same states as you have laws passed making the teaching of evolutionary biology illegal, you have laws passed decreeing eugenics - specifically compulsory sterilisation.
At the same time, you had a craze for Fitter Families competitions at State fairs - rural affairs, generally; where knowledge of stock-breeding was high, and of evolutionary biology pretty much nil.
So where is this "not pretty" link between evolutionary biology and eugenics that isn't shared by society generally?
And what exactly does Darwin's citation of Greg prove?
Comment by Robin Levett — March 22, 2007 @ 10:32 am
March 22nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Robin,
"And what exactly does Darwin's citation of Greg prove? "
That can be answered in part by the sentence introducing it:
"While we ponder Darwin's racism (and the erroneaous assumption earlier that racism is confined to assessment based upon skin colour) I will offer his citing of Greg here:"
The discussion of racism has centered around blacks and slavery. Darwin and his peers did not limit their use of the term this way, as evidenced by Greg's reference to the Irish race and their practices. Therefore, saying "he was an abolitionist" does not answer the question "was he a racist?"
A better direction from which to explore that question I have already demonstrated: "did he believe that the different races of man were inherently superior/inferior to each other?"
The answer is "yes".
Did he use his knowledge of science to justify this conclusion?
Yes, again.
It also goes to evidence in Darwin's writing which I was alluding to when I asked about Haeckel and Galton.
When one quotes a person they do so for a reason. If they disagree with that person they will say so. If not, they are using that quote as evidence or support of their view, as Darwin did with Greg's racist and eugenicist statement.
On Galton and Haeckel, while you've made your views on compulsory eugenics clear, do you agree they their programs and writings were also racist?
When you agree that they were racist consider the fact that Darwin cited them with favour.
In Darwin's Ode To Galton (Chapter 5) do you see him distancing himself from his cousin's views or quoting him favourably and as support for his own positions?
In the introduction to Descent.. Darwin says of Haeckel:
With Huxley, Darwin agreed that Haeckel was taking the theory of descent toward its logical direction. His concern was that Haeckel was too bold in his presentation and that this could lose adherents to the theory - Darwin was very interested in winning converts.
The only significant area in which he expresses a view different from Haeckel's, as you have previously mentioned, is that he believed that the human race was one species, and that the contrary position was used for justification of slavery.
This does not mitigate the fact that Darwin felt, and agreed with Haeckel, that the "lower races" were more closely related to apes than to the higher races and that, once exterminated, the gap between man and ape would be increased.
Neither does it change the fact that he felt that the lower races were inferior to the higher in morality, reason and intellect, and that these traits were heritable, at least in part.
You also mention Social Darwinism and its "not pretty" aspects.
As Darwin favourably cited Haeckel, and the father of Eugenics, Galton, he also mentioned, and called a "great philosopher", the father of Social Darwinism, Herbert Spencer, in Descent….
He was in no way distancing himself from these men.
Once again you bring up the spread of Eugenics in American states more than half a century after the publishing of Origins… and many decades after Descent….
This thinking, the scientific justification of racism and of selection, was by then widespread. It was through Darwinsm that the Eugenics program was inspired and founded, and through Darwinsim that it was spread and accepted. That some jurisdictions lost interest in its founding pillar after the fact does not impact its history.
At the same time you mention the spread of the idea of "fit families" at state fairs. And who was advertising this concept at such fairs?
The American Eugenics Society of course. Founded and upheld by Darwinists, on the principles of Darwinism.
http://www.uctv.tv/library-tes...
As recently as 1936 Julian Huxley wrote:
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org...
Interesting that the descendants of Darwin and Huxley wound up in this movement. Leonard, and who would know better, though he was doing with evolution exactly what his father would have wanted.
Comment by Pez — March 22, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:58 am
Pez:
I haven't time for a full answer at present, and in any event a full answer is for the moment unnecessary.
May I suggest that in the meantime you buy - or borrow, if you prefer - a copy of Descent, and read the context of the passage you have quoted, so that you can explain why you think that Darwin agreed with Greg's description of the Irish?
Comment by Robin Levett — March 23, 2007 @ 9:58 am
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I have read it, Robin.
Thanks for your advice and your time.
The ostensible context of Chapter 5 is to show that man, his moral character and values, and his tendency toward civilization are the product of natural selection.
Darwin is trying to establish this in conjunction with the sexual selection case he has to build and against the observations of his opponents.
The quote you like starts with his hat-tip to Greg and Galton (as well as Wallace).
Note three things:
1)his case is dependent in large part on his agreement with Greg
2) the modern savage is the most closely related to the semi-human progenitor
3) Natural selection, is responsible for our rise, our health, and the impulses which have formed our civilization (this will be important in a second).
The next passage:
You say "look, he doesn't want us to do away with these institutions", but you do so wearing rose-coloured glasses.
That aid is incidental to sympathy. It is an accidental or unnecessary byproduct of a social instinct which was honed to a superfluous degree by Natural selection, not by any Divine force or toward any teleological end. It is not a basic good.
We must not check it, he says, lest we be less noble.
But there is no reason to accept that we must not check it:
1) if we don't there are a multitude of bad effects
2) our nobility is another accidental byproduct of evolution
3) he provides us an example of a doctor doing harm to do good and mentions that any neglect would bear a contingent good
4) he shows some of the undesired results of not checking our sympathy after saying that it would result in evil (evils just as those which he earlier told us are not to be avoided)
5) he does his take on the checked freedom of the unfit to marry. I am more than satisfied with my previous treatment of this.
Next Darwin reassures us that his general theory of evolution, and especially the mechanism of Natural Selection are true, and have brought us to the current point of development. This although it is not obvious and, in fact, the case that civilization is checking Natural selection is compelling.
As he moves to examining the case of the development, advantage and heritability of the intellect he again devotes much space to Galton.
The same for the next passage on mankind's moral qualities.
So a few paragraphs after telling us that there are checks in place (restricted freedom of marriage of the unfit) here he describes in more detail some of those checks.
Review:
Natural selection has brought us to our heights.
It is also responsible for our moral qualities.
Our civilization is impeding Natural Selection to a degree (which it must not do, remember previous admonitions that we endure the severest struggle even at the peril of obvious evils).
We know that the propagation of the unfit is bad.
We know how it is being checked, and how we are interfering with this.
(by the way, we also see Darwin is a racist - modern savages being the most closely related and least advanced beyond our pre-human ancestors).
Now, the context of the passage with Greg at the end:
1) Natural selection may not be obviously at work in the realm of morality ( a knock against the theory itself) but it is responsible in the first place for our social instincts
2) The checks to the marriage and propagation of the unfit are, in fact, not really working.
3) The Irish are a race apart from the Scots, and an inferior one at that.
Darwin next moves on to telling us that
He doesn't say Greg is wrong, not about anything here, but merely suggest more checks (the early deaths of the unfit).
And, once again, the warning: