Actually how it start with black people. Classical race science was invented to prove how black people had thicker skulls and felt less pain in order to excuse slavery.
Fun fact “The origin of species” is only half of the name of Darwins book. Don’t ask about the other half.
“Favored Races” does not mean “white people.” “Favored races” = “selected species.”
This reminds me of weird creationist canards. Darwin is not responsible for social Darwinism, and distanced himself from it. He was talking about finches and tortoises.
Yes, when you read cherry picked quotes from creationist websites, you are going to get a very warped view of evolution and Darwin. I would suggest in the future reading primary sources directly (both Origin of Species and The Descent of Man are freely available in the public domain - Origin is going to be way easier for you to read). You always want to critically evaluate your secondary sources for bias and accuracy.
Another thing to be aware of us that language use changes over time. “THE
PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE” is basically a summary of natural selection - “favored”/selected for species survive, other species die.
I am curious where your claim that Darwin “had a passion for misoginy[sic]” originates from as well. That would imply some unusually intense or abnormal sexist thoughts compared to Darwin’s contemporaries?
And yes - evolution has been used to justify the pseudo science of Social Darwinism and scientific racism, just as quantum physics has been used to justify the pseudo science of reiki and energy healing. But Schrödinger is not responsible for Deepak Chopra.
Darwin portrayed Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia as less than Europeans in capacity and behavior. Peoples of the African continent were consistently referred to as cognitively depauperate, less capable, and of a lower rank than other races. These assertions are confounding because in “Descent” Darwin offered refutation of natural selection as the process differentiating races, noting that traits used to characterize them appeared nonfunctional relative to capacity for success. As a scientist this should have given him pause, yet he still, baselessly, asserted evolutionary differences between races. He went beyond simple racial rankings, offering justification of empire and colonialism, and genocide, through “survival of the fittest.” This too is confounding given Darwin’s robust stance against slavery.
As for your other question, same source
In “Descent,” Darwin identified women as less capable than (White) men, often akin to the “lower races.” He described man as more courageous, energetic, inventive, and intelligent, invoking natural and sexual selection as justification, despite the lack of concrete data and biological assessment. His adamant assertions about the centrality of male agency and the passivity of the female in evolutionary processes, for humans and across the animal world, resonate with both Victorian and contemporary misogyny.
Yes - great progress in learning how to critically evaluate your sources! Science.org is a great source compared to “Evolution News” (creationist blog) or “World: Sound journalism, grounded in facts and biblical truth.”
No one has denied that Darwin held racist or sexist views. Everyone is aware that he was a 19th century Englishman who held many of the problematic views that 19th century Englishmen had.
Darwin offered refutation of natural selection as the process differentiating races, noting that traits used to characterize them appeared nonfunctional relative to capacity for success. As a scientist this should have given him pause, yet he still, baselessly, asserted evolutionary differences between races.
You might notice here, that Darwin noticed the science was not favoring his racist views. That’s way that maliciously quoted passage from Descent is so muddied - he is trying to reconcile his understanding (and the predominant understanding) with what the science says.
For sexism - Descent heavily emphasized the fact that female sexual selection is a major drive of natural selection. This is profoundly less sexist than contemporary natural philosophers understanding of reproduction.
I’m not even sure what argument you are trying to make any more. You seem to be a crypto creationist parroting bad faith arguments that were worn out on Usenet back when our worst fears were the Y2K bug.
Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilized nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters. As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves.
Like these are not the words of an evil sexist pro slavery eugenicist. I would not argue that Darwin wasn’t sexist or racist at all - it’s the 1800s, they all are - but Darwin is not responsible for eugenics/social Darwinism.
Indeed, he articulated this same principle in his scientific study of human evolution, The Descent of Man (1871), where he claimed, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.”
Not only racism, but racial extermination was an integral feature of Darwin’s theory from the start.
There is more this is only a small part. Darwin also had passion for misoginy
I’m genuinely surprised to see creationist apologia on Lemmy. Here’s another article from the same website:
“When Christians Embrace Scientific Materialism”
West explains that “Stockholm syndrome” refers to the tendency of a victim to bond with or sympathize with his or her captor. West uses this phenomenon to describe the damage some influential Christians do when they decide to reject historical biblical teaching in favor of scientific materialism. One symptom of Stockholm Syndrome Christianity in science is a diminished role for God in Creation. As Exhibit A for this symptom, West chooses Francis Collins, arguably the most celebrated evangelical Christian scientist in America. Collins, who rose to fame through his work on the Human Genome Project and his bestselling book The Language of God, is admired by Christian leaders and laypeople alike as an exemplary model of a faithful Christian in science. But West contends that Collins’s model for integrating faith and science is deeply flawed. From failing to challenge the secular establishment in the areas of abortion and sexuality as head of the National Institutes of Health to a years-long quest to marginalize and attack Christian scientists and scholars skeptical of Darwinian evolution, West explains how Collins has fallen prey to Stockholm Syndrome Christianity. West also describes modern theistic evolution, the flawed theological perspective that has inspired many of Collins’s scientific positions.
It might not surprise you then that that Darwin quote is taken dishonestly out of context:
But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p. 236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact who reads Sir C. Lyell’s discussion (19. ‘Elements of Geology,’ 1865, pp. 583- 585. ‘Antiquity of Man,’ 1863, p. 145.), where he shews that in all the vertebrate classes the discovery of fossil remains has been a very slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape- like creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.
Eg, he’s talking about the elimination of a taxonomic distinction not violence or subjugation.
At this point, I’m not sure if you are being intellectually honest or if this is a weird crypto creationist propaganda thing.
how it started with the jews back in the day.
Actually how it start with black people. Classical race science was invented to prove how black people had thicker skulls and felt less pain in order to excuse slavery.
Fun fact “The origin of species” is only half of the name of Darwins book. Don’t ask about the other half.
Don’t forget the “science” of things like drapetomania.
Yes, certain people who were actual medical professionals in their day argued that not wanting to be enslaved was a mental illness if you were black.
Yea, along the old meme of Black people being fast runners by default.
Do you think Darwin meant this in an aspirational or observational way?
“Favored Races” does not mean “white people.” “Favored races” = “selected species.”
This reminds me of weird creationist canards. Darwin is not responsible for social Darwinism, and distanced himself from it. He was talking about finches and tortoises.
Don’t pretend Darwin and Galton were the same person just because they were related.
Darwins was pretty bullish on white surpremacy and sexism.
https://wng.org/roundups/darwins-racism-1617223432
After religion took a nosedive it was very convenient that slaves and colonies suddenly turned out to be “biologically inferior” humans.
People twisted Darwinism. Don’t blame this on him.
Maybe I misinformation. A few quotes I saw did not provide a great look.
Nonetheless evolution was widely used in the past to provide a “scientific” argument for racism instead of a “religious” argument.
Yes, when you read cherry picked quotes from creationist websites, you are going to get a very warped view of evolution and Darwin. I would suggest in the future reading primary sources directly (both Origin of Species and The Descent of Man are freely available in the public domain - Origin is going to be way easier for you to read). You always want to critically evaluate your secondary sources for bias and accuracy.
Another thing to be aware of us that language use changes over time. “THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE” is basically a summary of natural selection - “favored”/selected for species survive, other species die.
I am curious where your claim that Darwin “had a passion for misoginy[sic]” originates from as well. That would imply some unusually intense or abnormal sexist thoughts compared to Darwin’s contemporaries?
And yes - evolution has been used to justify the pseudo science of Social Darwinism and scientific racism, just as quantum physics has been used to justify the pseudo science of reiki and energy healing. But Schrödinger is not responsible for Deepak Chopra.
Is Science.org a creationist website? Further research affirms my believes instead of debunking it.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj4606
As for your other question, same source
Yes - great progress in learning how to critically evaluate your sources! Science.org is a great source compared to “Evolution News” (creationist blog) or “World: Sound journalism, grounded in facts and biblical truth.”
No one has denied that Darwin held racist or sexist views. Everyone is aware that he was a 19th century Englishman who held many of the problematic views that 19th century Englishmen had.
You might notice here, that Darwin noticed the science was not favoring his racist views. That’s way that maliciously quoted passage from Descent is so muddied - he is trying to reconcile his understanding (and the predominant understanding) with what the science says.
For sexism - Descent heavily emphasized the fact that female sexual selection is a major drive of natural selection. This is profoundly less sexist than contemporary natural philosophers understanding of reproduction.
I’m not even sure what argument you are trying to make any more. You seem to be a crypto creationist parroting bad faith arguments that were worn out on Usenet back when our worst fears were the Y2K bug.
That’s not talking about Darwin’s views though, that’s talking about how scientific racism adapted and distorted Darwinism.
Darwin was against slavery and connected to several abolitionists. Darwin never really promoted social Darwinism, and his writings point out how human society does take care of its weak/those who would not otherwise survive.
Like these are not the words of an evil sexist pro slavery eugenicist. I would not argue that Darwin wasn’t sexist or racist at all - it’s the 1800s, they all are - but Darwin is not responsible for eugenics/social Darwinism.
The article I linked previously was the top result this one might be slightly better it contains some quotes
There is more this is only a small part. Darwin also had passion for misoginy
I’m genuinely surprised to see creationist apologia on Lemmy. Here’s another article from the same website:
“When Christians Embrace Scientific Materialism”
It might not surprise you then that that Darwin quote is taken dishonestly out of context:
Eg, he’s talking about the elimination of a taxonomic distinction not violence or subjugation.
At this point, I’m not sure if you are being intellectually honest or if this is a weird crypto creationist propaganda thing.
Civilized is the word which was used for White.
Savage is the word which was used for non white. There is no real way to spin this.
Acknowledging Darwin was racist like basically everyone else back then is not defending creationism.
I know this is a tough passage to read, but no. That’s not what these words mean here. And again - “exterminate” is not referring to conquest.
You are a crypto creationist aren’t you?
Both of these people are acting like Darwin and Galton were the same person and I think it’s intentional dishonesty.