Evolution is antithetical to racism

Others have taken this on but there are still points which I feel have not been made.Your quotes do NOT demonstrate changes in the theory to accomodate changes in generally accepted belief. None of them even mention or suggest a change in the theory. All you see are changes in generally accepted belief. Racist views were (wrongly) believed to be fact when these people wrote. And only one out of the three (Tyndall) even suggests that evolution explains the difference - and that without any clear explanation of how the differences arise. And even Tyndall's quote comes from 1874 - only 15 years from Darwin's publication.So, the most that you can say from these quotes is that the theory of evolution - as it stood in the 19th Century - did not obviously refute racism. That is hardly a surprising result, nor one that is actually helpful to your case.Indeed the real issue is not the malleability of the theory, but the difficulty of applying it to such problems, without detailed knowledge of the conditions. Even simple mechanical problems can be hard to solve without detailed knowledge of the conditions (see Chaos theory) so this is not necessarily a serious strike against the theory.However evolution does tend to oppose racist assumptions. For instance, given the fact that human populations do interbreed, any strongly advantageous trait would be expected to spread through the entire human population rather than being confined within a single race. Only locally advantageous traits would be expected to be so confined - and then not necessarily along racial lines (the greater lung capacity of Andean natives is an example). The idea that a trait would be so advantageous to spread throughout an entire "race" - and then stop there - is highly questionable.

The Dobzhansky quote doesn't quite say what you think it says. I have bolded relevant points to make it more clear:

quote:

---

"Seen in retrospect, evolution as a whole doubtless had a general direction, from simple to complex, from dependence on to relative independence of the environment, to greater and greater autonomy of individuals, greater and greater development of sense organs and nervous systems conveying and processing information about the state of the organism's surroundings, and finally greater and greater consciousness. You can call this direction progress or by some other name." -Theodosius Dobzhansky

​

This is more than evident reading the early writers of evolutionary theory. Approximately 30-40 years ago this belief began to, itself, evolve. Spearheaded by certain eminent figures like Margulis, Gould, Dawkins, etc, there was a new belief that life was not more evolved or less evolved-- just, evolved. And this bait and switch exists over its social and moral implications.

---

Let us note that nowhere does Dobzhansky hint that his idea applies within the human species. Nor does he suggest that this trend is more than a general historical idea, one that only applies over the whole of evolutionary history - not at the small scale of within-species evolution. (This is not to say that small evolutionary changes cannot be in the direction of "progress" just that many of them - likely a very large majority - will not be).Nor would Margulis, Gould or Dawkins deny that the changes Dobzhansky refers to actually occurred. There isn't even a disagreement here. They would make the points that I am making. This "progress" is not identical to evolutionary fitness. In large part it is due to starting from a low base (as we would expect if life originated naturally !). If these traits were produced by evolution rather than starting then that in itself would explain the large-scale historical trend that Dpbzhansky refers to.So here is no "bait-and-switch" here - nor are there the "social and moral implications" you would like to claim(The Brig Klyce quote you produce is just silly. It's not even clear what he means by "logical entropy" - the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to thermodynamic entropy. Not to the entropy of information theory or some other "entropy" that Klyce has made up. There is no real problem - which is why it is ignored.)

quote:

---

Right. I then posted sources, coming straight form the top, that pointed out how eminent evolutionists justified racism in their own minds.

---

That's not true. Only one out of three came close to attempting to "justify" racism.. The other two were simply expressions of racist views - views which were generally accepted as fact at the time.

quote:

---

There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.

---

As I said earlier this progression is mainly an artefact resulting from the fact that the earliest organisms were very simple. Because complexity is a product of evolution the most complex creatures will tend to be more recent and descended from simpler creatures.

quote:

---

If the oldest known human bones are said to be found in Ethiopia, and latter fossilizations of man places them in Europe, you make the deduction. Is that not indicative of a European developing after the African?

---

No. You can't use geographical location like that. Suppose humans migrated out of Africa and then a new sub-species developed within Africa and replaced the initial African population ? Africa's a big place, with a variety of habitats. Even if you wrongly equated evolution with progression - which none of your quotes from mainstream evolutionists do - your argument fails.Your whole argument is based on the fact that evolution was founded in a society where views that we (rightly) call racist were widely accepted as unquestionable facts. Quite obviously evolutionary theory had nothing to do with that state of affairs.

quote:

---

What on earth are you talking about? All of the quotes are taken as excerpts from books or publications. I assume you would agree that Darwin wrote at length about how such things come about. You aren't seriously going to deny that Darwin talked about descent and ascent as it relates to the progress of organisms, are you? That much is transparently obvious.

---

I'm talking about what the quotes actually say. Not where they come from. Not anything else the people quoted might have said. But apparently you don't wan to talk about that. Quoting Darwin implying that the "savage races" are more ape-like or Huxley asserting that everyone knows that negroes are inferior, doesn't say anything about the theory of evolution because those beliefs don't come from the theory of evolution. That is what people in those days, in their society, believed.

quote:

---

You can call a steaming pile of dung pumpkin pie if you want to, and then call everyone else crazy for not understanding that pumpkin pie and dung are the same thing, but you won't make any allies in the process.

---

Of course I didn't call anyone crazy, nor did I try to pass anything off. All I did was point out a fact that you don't like. You may hate me for telling the truth instead of agreeing with you. But I'll just have to live with that. Creationism seems to breed arrogant bullies.And your last quote says nothing about evolutionary theory. All it really deals with is the racist assumptions of Americans and eugenics (which is based on selective breeding - known long before Darwin. In fact anyone who has any familiarity with the contents of Darwin's knows that Darwin used the results of selective breeding as part of his case for evolution).I suggest that in future before using a quote, that YOU consider it well. You didn't do that with the quote from Darwin. Or Huxley. Or Dobzhansky. Or Klyce.

quote:

---

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that the tact that nem is taking isn't valid. If it could be shown that a overwhelming majority of evolutionists have always been racists, that the overwhelming majority of evolutionists remain racists, that they were and remain more racist than their contemporaries, that they have and continue to resist non-racism more than others, then I think one has a legitimate reason to wonder about the role of evolution in racist thinking, even if it racism isn't a necessary logical conclusion of the theory.

---

Except that an intellectually honest person would admit that if that were NOT the case the assumption that the theory was to blame would be called into question. NJ doesn't do that. he just uses it to make further claims (first that the theory is too "malleable" and secondly that the theory is racist but that scientists are dishonestly hiding it - i.e. since the evidence doesn't support his smear he invents MORE smears).Worse, when NJ's quotes don't support his claim the best he can do is to assert that there must be other quotes that do support it somewhere else. Ignoring the obvious question of why he didn't produce THOSE quotes.Still worse, a discussion of what the theory says ought to carry more weight than even a valid argument of the form that NJ is attempting. But NJ calls that a "steaming pile of dung" when compared to the "pumpkin pies" that he pulls out of his ass.Ultimately all NJ is doing is exposing the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of creationism.

quote:

---

What you have emboldened further supports what I have been saying. Early proponents of evolution have viewed the process in linear terms. The surely was this sense of less evolved/more evolved as it relates to organisms. Where is the objection? Are you honestly going to deny that?

---

I'm going to deny that Dobzhansky said that that because the parts that I emboldened show that he didn't. Dobzhansky's "progress" is a feature of the big picture - not a universal of evolutionary change.Maybe you can find some other guys who believed it - but if you do I'd bet that most of them believed in some theory of evolution other than Darwin's.

quote:

---

He wouldn't have to since ALL organisms, human and non-human, are products of evolution according to the theory. Why would humans be exempt?

---

I don't say that humans are exempt form what Dobzhansky actually said. But he didn't say that you should expect to see significant progress in cases of microevolution. If he meant humans to be considered such a special case then yes, he WOULD have to say it. Because what he did say gives no reason to think that at all.

quote:

---

You can call your description anything you'd like, but you just described was progress. Its very simple-- unicellular to multicellular. Prokaryotes to eukaryotes.

---

Exactly - examples of major differences. Not examples of everyday small-scale within-species evolution.

quote:

---

Less adapted to more adapted. Less intelligent to more intelligent. The list goes on, and yet, you deny "progress.

---

"Less adapted" to "more adapted" is NOT the sort of progress Dobzhansky meant and it certainly isn't what racists have in mind. The example of Andean natives I used earlier is an example of "less adapted to more adapted". I've never seen a racist use it as an example of racial superiotity.

quote:

---

he list goes on, and yet, you deny "progress." Surely you must only being doing so because you understand the underlying implication if you don't-- namely, that it explains some justification on the part of racist ideologies, whether you agree with their premise or not

---

I'm not denying Dobzhansky's idea of "progress". I do say that it is a subjective idea (if you've seen the opening episode of "Heroes" consider Mohinder's speech about cockroaches and their superiority to humans). More importantly it is NOT an idea which is of any help to racists for the other reasons I've pointed out,

quote:

---

Its not made up at all. There are different kinds of entropy. Read his page on it and it will explain what he is talking about in great detail. For however nutty panspermia might be considered by both creo's and evo's alike, his understandings are well articulated.

---

I read the page. Klyce reveals that he made up the term. That he uses it to refer to the statistical mechanics version of entropy AND the information theory version of entropy AND one based on his own idiosyncratic definition of organisation ("furnished with organs") as if they were all the same thing. Which is certainly NOT true. It also isn't true that there is an analogue of the 2LoT for Information theory, so he's wrong there, too.So that page quite definitely supports my point. (And note that - unlike you - I bothered to explain why it supports my point. You didn't explain why the emboldened sections of the Dobzhansky quote supported your case - and they don't).

quote:

---

or instance, I have long been an advocate for the specific naming of an immutable natural law. That I am aware of, there is no law of death or disorder that has a specific name, and yet, its as simplistic and true as gravity.

---

Really ? How does it apply to bacteria ?

Let me put it simply. Some racists abuse evolutionary theory to justify their hatreds and prejudices in the same way you are abusing the evidence you present to justify yours.If an evolutionist says something racist then you assert that it must be because the theory of evolution implies or at least legitimises racism. If they are against racism you assert that it is because the theory is "schitzophrenic" (sic) or they are being dishonest,But such assertions are not an honest evaluation of the evidence. They are just attempts to force the evidence to fit the conclusions. The latter in particular is a baseless smear - which shows the true nature of your arguments.Likewise your attempt to deal with counter-arguments. Statements actually dealing with the theory are ignored or rudely dismissed. When it is pointed out that quotes you use do not support your case you appeal to the idea that there must be another quote somewhere that does. You're not trying to present a real case, you're just making excuses to try to avoid the fact that your hatred and prejudice are baseless.So you shouldn't be surprised if racists do the same.

quote:

---

He was speaking about logical entropy, which was the entire purpose of his thesis. To quote you: Why not read the source and learn what [Klyce] actually says?

---

I did that. See Message 69. And Klyce never clearly explains what a "closed system" is for his conflation of statistical mechanics and information theory.(See also Message 38 for more explanation of the Dobzhansky quote.)

I'd settle for less impolite. More clinical, perhaps. As I say it's more a matter of tone. (And you should know that the use of "liar" is deeply frowned upon here. Even when it is justified).

Pointing out thst some people who believed in evolution also believed in racism in some from does nothing to advance the topic. Such arguments were rightly disposed of at the very start.Perhaps you should try actually discussing the theory of evolution rather than looking for excuses to smear it.

quote:

---

We get claim after claim that Marx wasn't racist.

---

Looking back it seems that what we do have is the assertion that you hadn't shown it.

quote:

---

Then you accuse me of making "false accusations". I haven't done this, so I have to guess what in the world you're talking about. Pardon me if I can't read your mind.

---

That isn't in the post you are replying to. And we have an obvious example in your "BUSTED!" post above.

quote:

---

If it's off topic now, it was just as off-topic when the evolutionists were carrying on about it, now wasn't it?

---

The fact that you tried a fallacious argument earlier in the thread does not make it any less fallacious.

quote:

---

And I don't see that it's very off topic to discuss the founders of evolutionist & racist philosophies

---

Neither Marx nor Engels was a "founder of evolution", so even if your objection were correct it would not apply to the quotes you used. And even if you used Darwin or Wallace instead it would still be inadequate to show the implications of evolutionary theory - especially modern evolutionary theory which has advanced considerably since their time.

quote:

---

Looks like we're done then. I'm not the one who said it's off topic to discuss the racist evolutionist founders of these philosophies.

---

Nobody said that it was off-topic, just that it had been dealt with.More importantly the issue you were asked to support was not the idea that Marx was racist to some small degree. You WERE asked to support your assertion that Marx had proved that evolutionary theory was racist. That WOULD be on-topic and advance the discussion. Or rather it would if there were such a proof.

Just so that we are absolutely clear the issue under discussion is whether Marx actually proved that evolution was inherently racist. I state this up front because CTD already has a record of misrepresenting this point.

quote:

---

Ha! Enough double talk. It'd be on-topic until I did it, and then it'd be 'off-topic' again.

---

I am sorry that you find it necessary to pretend that others are as dishonest as you. The fact is that your claim was false. It had never been declared off-topic.

quote:

---

But in case nobody noticed, I said I had no interest in repeating his work, now didn't I?

---

You've no interest in showing that this alleged work even existed. And that's because it didn't.

quote:

---

At this point, it doesn't contribute much, if anything, to demonstrate commonly-known facts to people who we all know will continue to deny them. That's just not how I define 'progress'.

---

It is not a "commonly-known" fact at all - nobody else appears to know it, and you have provided no reason to think that it is a fact. Demonstrating that it is a fact would be progress. The reason you do not do it is because it is not a fact - and you know that.

quote:

---

No. The opposition is simply looking to draw this out. They hope I'll make a mistake and they'll be able to attack my credibility. They hope 3rd party readers will be convinced that truth is determined by how many people wish a thing to be so.

---

You have no credibility. And you're the one dragging this out in the hope that third parties won't notice that you can't support your claims.

quote:

---

Until some flaw can be found in Huxley's logic, I don't see that there's much to argue about. The only flaw I've found is that it's based upon evolutionism...

---

You see, you're already trying to misrepresent the issue. It's about Marx, not Huxley.

quote:

---

I haven't read much of this thread but enough to know that people fight the idea that the theory of evolution has anything to do with racism. But historically it is known to have fueled racism. Historically Hitler did make use of it, and so did Margaret Sanger who promoted abortion -- she had in mind mostly blacks, and she was a proponent of eugenics, as was Hitler.

---

Hitler was not exactly a fan of evolution, and his racism was based on ideas published prior to Darwin’s Origin. We may also note that it is hardly unknown for Christians - especially conservative Christians in America to support racism. Bob Jones University, for instance had a ban on inter-racial relationships into the ‘70s.

quote:

---

Of course the ToE didn't invent racism, that was already part of human experience, a form of tribalism I guess. But there is no doubt the idea that humans descend from an apelike ancestor, and that human origins are often traced to Africa, fuels the idea that there are levels of human beings, more evolved and less evolved human beings.

---

As has the idea that the Jews were to blame for the death of Jesus, and bore the guilt for it. The idea that there are different levels of human beings is not - in reality - significantly supported by the theory - since humans are all one species. If you want to say that modern humans are - in some respects - superior to Homo Habilis, go ahead.Indeed the theory gives us no reason to suppose that the races of humanity should be significantly different in any way that we think important. Racial divisions lack even a sound basis in biology (consider the one-drop rule for extreme absurdity). Local populations will tend to become adapted to local conditions - such as Andean natives tending to have greater lung capacities but I can’t imagine that being greatly significant to racists.

quote:

---

There was racism even before evolution of course, and the hard thing to grasp is how it could have coexisted with Christianity since Biblically it is very clear we are all descended from one set of human parents, so we're all cousins.

---

You should know better than that First, if common ancestry were sufficient, evolution has that. Second the Bible endorses racism in a number of ways. The whole idea of a Chosen people supports racism. There is the Curse of Ham which condemns an entire ethnic group (almost) to slavery. True, some Christians distorted it by claiming that it was about Africans rather than Canaanites (excepting the Israelites) but the sentiment was still there. Other Christians decided that dark skin was the Mark of Cain, and this belief was part of the Southern Baptist justification of slavery.Then there is the belief in polygenism which some adopted in the 19th Century - including Louis Agassiz, perhaps the last creationist scientist (in the sense that creationism was relevant to his scientific views, at least).It may not be easy for you to imagine - perhaps in part because you don’t want to imagine it. But it happened.

Worse, the Curse Of Ham, even properly understood is racist. The idea that the Jews, to this day, should be considered guilty of Jesus’ wrongful execution - which could be considered murder - is racist (and has contributed greatly to justifying Christian persecution of the Jews). The idea that the Israelites should be entitled to special privileges in Israelite law is racist.Racism is IN the Bible, and endorsed by the Binle.