As a follow up to my fisking of Bill Federer's nonsense about Darwin and racism, here's an interesting new article. There is a new edition of Darwin's Descent of Man being published with a forward by Jim Moore and Adrian Desmond. The two Darwin biographers argue that one of the reasons why Darwin was so firm in his belief in evolution was that he saw it as a way to fight against slavery, which he abhorred:
The academics say that the biologist's work was driven by a desire to prove that because all races were descended from the same ape ancestors, none could be superior...Darwin caused a sensation when he published the work in 1871. It applied to humans the theory of evolution that he had outlined for animals in The Origin of Species 12 years earlier.
The new introduction claims that Darwin felt a "moral imperative" to discredit the opinion that blacks and whites were separate species,. "The book originated in Darwin's worries about slavery and ended in an explanation of racial divergence," says the introduction.
One more reason why Federer is completely offbase with his assertions about Darwin and racism.
More like this
Oh boy, the old "Darwin was a racist" argument. At least Federer didn't make the hilarious mistake one creationist, "American Patriot", made on TO a while back. He saw this in Darwin's work:
"The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate."
...and leapt to the assumption from that last phrase that not only was Darwin a racist, but that he had had homosexual relations with a black man. Even after the multiple meanings of "intimate" were pointed out to him, and it was explained that an upper-class Victorian gentleman was unlikely to be bragging about his sexual encounters in a scientific text, he still insisted that his interpretation was reasonable.
"moral imperative" and materialist philosophy in the same sentence. Now that is a juxtaposition to look at.
Even if it could be proved that Darwin was concerned about racism, it would not detract from the very real misuse of evolutionary theory giving rise to racist ideas.
It is a problem inherent in the philosophy, Ed, even if the proponents do not themselves give it their approval.
Moral imperative comes from elsewhere than matter and molecules. Materialists will always have to borrow from other philosophy bases to make "moral imperatives".
They can and do because this is necessary to man. Man in his humanness demands meaning. Materialism, and evolutionary theory cannot give that.
Which is why your argument will be weak in this arena of "moral imperative" whatever the issue, including that of racism. No matter how adamantly you argue it.
"moral imperative" and materialist philosophy in the same sentence. Now that is a juxtaposition to look at.
You're still making the same mistake of confusing evolutionary theory with "materialist philosophy". Darwin was not a materialist, nor is evolutionary theory any more "materialist" than the theory of relativity of the germ theory of disease.
Even if it could be proved that Darwin was concerned about racism, it would not detract from the very real misuse of evolutionary theory giving rise to racist ideas. It is a problem inherent in the philosophy, Ed, even if the proponents do not themselves give it their approval.
Sorry to be so blunt, but that is an enormous load of crap. There is nothing inherent in evolutionary theory (which is not a "philosophy") that is racist; in fact, everything we know from evolutionary theory leads to the opposite conclusion, that what we call "races" do not differ biologically in any significant way. And unless you're willing to blame the KKK on Christianity, trying to blame the misuse of evolution to justify racism is hypocritical at best, downright idiotic at worst.
Moral imperative comes from elsewhere than matter and molecules. Materialists will always have to borrow from other philosophy bases to make "moral imperatives". They can and do because this is necessary to man. Man in his humanness demands meaning. Materialism, and evolutionary theory cannot give that.
You're right, evolutionary theory can't give that. Neither can gravitational theory or the kinetic theory of gasses. Theories don't give "meaning", nor do they attempt to. Theories merely explain natural phenomena.
Which is why your argument will be weak in this arena of "moral imperative" whatever the issue, including that of racism. No matter how adamantly you argue it.
Except I didn't make any such argument. If you'd read a bit closer you might have noticed that the text you are reacting to was merely a historical description of what motivated Darwin. Whether you agree with that or not has no bearing on whether it is true.