Darwin said races weren't equal...?

Question

The orignal title of the Evolutionists' Bible was

"The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

I know people are going to just say it was the belief of the time, and Darwin wasn't as racist as others were, but he still thought of Europeans as the greatest 'race' and considered many other races to be savage. He still makes a case for the differences between races and that their is an imperical order to the most to least advanced.

If you're caucasion, of course it's fine to be an Evolutionist. If you're not white, and you're an Evolutionist...well that's just ironic

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#DarwinRaceQuotes

This is a website in defense of Evoltion. You can find the quotes for yourself.

The question is, if you are a different race than caucasion, and an Evolutionist, are you okay with being considered lower from an evolutionary standpoint?

Answer 1

His theories, again were flawed.
He "thought "Europeans to be superior but testing has shown the east Asians to be of higher intellect capacity.
Darwin was biased because he thought of himself too much.
A lot of his writings were based on observations.
Einstein "Everything is relative to the observer"
Much better writings came from Al.

Answer 2

I think this could be misinterpreted, but Darwin might have been referring to man's penchant for war and hatred toward his fellow man. Remember, if Hitler had taken over the world this would be a reality (the extinction of other races). I don't mean to imply that there aren't racist undertones or that Darwin was not racist.
Fortunately, we now know that humans are not so different and that race does not indicate or prove any of the stereotypes some people once believed. Unfortunately, the stigma of those beliefs and the statements Darwin made tarnished the theory of evolution. To state that not being Caucasian and believing in evolution is ironic is somewhat like stating one cannot believe the bible and be a scientist because the bible states many now proven false beliefs about science (e.g. the earth is the center of the universe).
Your question, "if you are a different race than Caucasian, and an Evolutionist, are you okay with being considered lower from an evolutionary standpoint?", is more of a statement that because Darwin was likely racist his theory is less credible. Jefferson had slaves, so can believing in the constitution and that all men are created equal be equated to the belief that slavery is still a component of that belief simply because the man who wrote it had slaves?
The constitution, the bible, the theory of evolution, and many other works have evolved since their initial creation. As we learn more about the world our understanding of these works evolves.
So an African American can believe in the constitution without supporting the belief that slavery is justifiable even though the men who originally wrote it had slaves, a christian can be a scientist without renouncing the bible because some of the authors made incorrect statements about science, and a person of any race can be an Evolutionist without considering themselves lower from an evolutionary standpoint simply because Darwin may have been racist.

Answer 3

A lot of dubious social anthropology arises out of Darwinism. Some of it is indeed racist. But the use of the word Race in the title is not as we use it nowadays. Darwin was very careful in the Origin not to refer to humans at all -The Origin is ONLY about animals other than humans (which you would know if you had read it, which you haven't). Race was not used in that sense among humans at the time - it was applied AFTER Darwin. And the use of the word "favoured" is not the same either - he means favoured by natural selection, which is a blind and unconscious mechanism. Finally, he was vehemently anti-racist even though racism WAS the common belief at the time. Though others tried to use evolution as an argument for racism, Darwin wasn't racist. I DEFINITELY know more about this than you do. And you have shown yourself to be ignorant on the subject.

(and the full title is ON the Origin of Species)

Answer 4

Evolution makes no claim of imbalance in the worth of different populations, nor of any species having more "worth" than others.

The conceptualization of Evolution saying this airses for several reasons:

1. Misunderstanding of Evolution: They think that those species with higher "fitness" means they are more inherently valuable. Like any Scientific theory, Evolutionary theory is descriptive and not prescriptive. Evolution has no attached morality to it, the same way someone doesn't claim that because gravity exists, people shouldn't fly in airplanes.

I would also like to note that the personal opinions of founders has no affect on the theory itself, nor on what the theory proposes today. Evolution makes no claims on fitness difference being moral worth difference.

2. Ignorance on "Race" and "Species": Race and Species are interchangable words. To suggest that Caucasians and African Americans, or other ethnicities are somehow different races is ridiculous.

At best, an ethnicity could be called sub-species within the Human species taxonomy. Caucasian being one sub-species and African American, Alpine, Nordic, etc. being other sub-species.

3. Racial Thought Processes: This reason is debatable, but indeed the only reason I can think of why Creationists would make the connection between "fitness" and "worth" of the human "races" (Which don't really exist in real life) is because their thought processes are too focused on division of ethnicities into separate categories. This kind of thinking is dangerous, because too much thinking in racial terms, combined with human thought processes will inevitably lead to Racist thought processes.

Ethnicity is a generally irrelevant issue, don't make it into something bigger than what it really is.

As an aside note, this illustration of Evolution yet again appears to present a "ladder" of Evolution, when the reality is that Evolution proposes a branching system with all organisms currently present to be the "most evolved".

Generally, any species that exist today are "equally" evolved and have enough fitness to stabilize populations within their niche.

Answer 5

Dont care to stir up any hype about the races!Certain folks here
expouse the the (theory) of evolution as fact,and proven beyond
any doubt.That statement is far from correct! As a matter of fact
the scientific community is more and more finding fault with the
evolutionary theory.You will note (theory) being the operative word.
If you would like some well written information on evolution verses
creation, their is a book published by Jehovahs Witnesses titled;
Life-How did it get here?By evolution or by creation?You can con-
tact the Witnesses in your area or go to; www.watchtower.org....

Answer 6

Yeah, so? Darwin was a human like every other, and a product of his time. He certainly had his faults. A feeling that the European was superior to all other peoples of the world at that time was common. So?

Does the fact that he was a bit of a bigot invalidate hundreds of thousands of proofs, each and every one observable, testable, and verifiable by anyone? No, of course not. Newton played around with alchemy, quite seriously for a while -- does that mean gravity doesn't exist? Of course not. You tell me -- does the fact that Jim Baker, Ted Haggard, and dozens of other religious leaders were actually hard-core "sinners" lying through their teeth and having fun sex outside their marriages mean all the religion they preached is wrong? You can't have it both ways...


Darwin didn't know anything about genetics, as it hadn't been invented yet. If he had, I have little doubt he would have enthusiastically kept up to date on the genetic studies that show "race" is a made-up concept and genetically meaningless.
That he was able to see the evidence that led to his theory, which has stood up to every test thrown at it for 150 years, despite his biases is a good proof of his genius.

Science, unlike religion, isn't afraid to admit that mistakes have been made in the past, that now we have better evidence or a better understanding of old evidence, and now we know more. It's a constant search for more and better knowledge, and is always updating itself. We know better now than Darwin did -- isn't that a good thing?

Oh, and "evolutionist" does not have anything to do with evolution by natural selection, that term is only used by sociological evolution or by ignorant theists who want to present the fact of evolution as "just another belief." There is no "belief" involved in evolution, just rational and logical evaluation of evidence and logical conclusions. We also do not have a "bible" -- there is only one bible, and it's a book full of stories passed on by hebrew sheepherders, full of inaccuracies, myths, self-contradictions, and outright lies. You can't apply your superstitious religious terminology to science.

Answer 7

The religion & spirituality section has enough of this when legitimate questions are asked. You have not asked a question here at all. This site is for asking questions and receiving answers. Period. The only way to make this site better is to report those that are not following the rules, whether you agree with them or not. I have done so.

Answer 8

No one claims Darwin was 100% right on the first try. The basic evolutionary theory remains true, but there is more being discovered all the time.

Evolution is fact. The theory is in the mechanisms behind the fact. Same for gravity. We have the fact, and we still have research in gravitational theory.

For some reason, creationists cannot grasp that simple concept.

Answer 9

Beliefs of racial superiority were around long before Darwin's time and are still omnipresent now. But then, in the 1800's, it was believed that the four humors of your body balanced your emotions. So, that's that. But, I personally don't believe in evolution, so I guess it doesn't effect me.

PS. I also spoke to my Chemistry teacher about this.(Why? Because I was upset that my AP US History book had quotes of American Nationalists and Manifest Destiny advocates denouncing Mexicans as savages during the Mexican War. And Mr. Hidalgo, being a Mexican-American, as myself, as well as my Academic Decathlon Couch, had a discussion with me about it). Anywho, he said that multi-racial(mainly minorities) people are actually biologically superior because of the fact that their different genetic traits make them more resistant to infection and bacteria. And because Mexicans are a mixture of Spanish, Muslim, Jewish, French, German, Aztec, and Mayan blood, we were in fact, biologically superior.
Not that it matters, but that's what he said.

Answer 10

I'm not white, I'm an evolutionist...It's not about better or superior, it's about who's most fit for their specific environment...
Also, the fallacy you are using is called Attacking the Source, it's like if I were to take the life of one Christian, who misuses or misunderstands Christianity and assume they represent all.

Answer 11

LOL – Read a current book on evolution. Of course I’ve known this. It isn’t uncommon for people in that time to be racist. He also believed women were inferior.