Why Darwin isn't my hero...

[Alondro]

A little interview on the all-too-often-ignored darker aspects of Darwin and his theory:

Science does not perfection make

It's important to remember, any idea can and will be perverted to evil.  That is human nature.  From religious groups to atheists, all have their share of monsters.  To deny this is to in effect collude with those monsters in their plans, for to deny it wholeheartedly one must willingly turn a blind eye and live in total ignorance as they work their wickedness.

[superluser]

Thankfully, Darwin's theories are almost entirely independent of Evolutionary theory today.

And scientific racism (and specifically the Aryan race theory) predate Darwin's publications.

[Darkmoon]

Just a gentle reminder for anyone that may post in this topic, this could become a touchy subject, and already I can feel people getting ready to flame some group or another simply because they can (or think they should).

The article Alondro linked to has merit, as does a discussion of its implications, but I want everyone to act civil here or I will shut this topic down.

[MT Hazard]

What everyone should remember is that Darwins work was a starting point, not the sole book that claims to explain everything (He already have too many of those)

[Reese Tora]

I... Don't see why anything in that article would make Darwin "not your hero" since it's basically about how people, in the past, used a false understanding of what Darwin's theory said to do bad things...

I was going to throw a simile in here, but I can't think of any outrageous misuses of legitimate science that parallel eugenics in totally missing the point of the theory that supposedly gave rise to it.

[superluser]

I... Don't see why anything in that article would make Darwin "not your hero" since it's basically about how people, in the past, used a false understanding of what Darwin's theory said to do bad things...

The article states that Darwin used his theories to justify his racist beliefs:

``What that misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues. He asserted that different races of mankind had traveled different distances along the evolutionary path - white Caucasians were at the top of the racial hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below.''

I was going to throw a simile in here, but I can't think of any outrageous misuses of legitimate science that parallel eugenics in totally missing the point of the theory that supposedly gave rise to it.

Edward Bernays exploited psychological theory, though his theories seem to actually work.

Perhaps the idiocy about subliminal advertising?

[Baal Hadad]

Okay, I'm confused.  Did Darwin say effectively that "man is but an animal" or did he say there was a "hierarchy" of life?

Those two things don't really fit together....

Then again, when has that ever stopped people?    Racists can justify their racism whether they accept evolution or not--if they do, they misinterpret it to mean that there are "fittest" people (namely, white "Aryans") and that there are "unfit" people (people of color) and therefore impose "shoulds" on what's supposed to be science--namely, that the "races" "should" not mix.  And if they're creationists they don't even want to accept the possibility that they "evolved from" or "are related to" anyone but white "Aryan" humans anyway.

[superluser]

Okay, I'm confused.  Did Darwin say effectively that "man is but an animal" or did he say there was a "hierarchy" of life?

No, and no.

As far as I know, Darwin never said that man was only an animal (though that follows from evolutionary theory--although evolutionary theory doesn't preclude the claim that man is a really awesome animal who has a different type of soul than the beasts).

And from what I can tell from the article, Darwin didn't say that there was a hierarchy of life, but rather that some humans were more highly evolved than others.  More evolved doesn't mean better, but it's just as wrong.

[Baal Hadad]

Okay, I'm confused.  Did Darwin say effectively that "man is but an animal" or did he say there was a "hierarchy" of life?

No, and no.

As far as I know, Darwin never said that man was only an animal (though that follows from evolutionary theory--although evolutionary theory doesn't preclude the claim that man is a really awesome animal who has a different type of soul than the beasts).

And from what I can tell from the article, Darwin didn't say that there was a hierarchy of life, but rather that some humans were more highly evolved than others.  More evolved doesn't mean better, but it's just as wrong.

How can it even be possible to be "more evolved"?  "More complex," maybe (though I doubt THAT applies to humans).  "Better adapted to the environment", okay, sure.  But "more evolved" just reeks of not understanding what evolution is (no reflection on you, as I don't think you're even saying that, just that Darwin said it--and anyway I'm speaking just in general).  Evolution is adaptive, not progressive.

[Reese Tora]

I... Don't see why anything in that article would make Darwin "not your hero" since it's basically about how people, in the past, used a false understanding of what Darwin's theory said to do bad things...

The article states that Darwin used his theories to justify his racist beliefs:

``What that misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues. He asserted that different races of mankind had traveled different distances along the evolutionary path - white Caucasians were at the top of the racial hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below.''

Ooooooh, that bit... I kinda ignored it since it's not true.  That little chestnut is an invention that creationists particularly like to repeat because they seem to think it helps their case to slander or libel poor defenseless old scientists long since dead.  If Darwin were still alive, he could retire with the money from the Libel suits... just for one thing, the whole concept of 'more evolved' runs entirely counter to the entire concept of evolution and natural selection as put forth by Darwin.

I'm afraid to say, the guy that Time magazine interviewed did not do the research(or, possibly, lied, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt).

[Baal Hadad]

I... Don't see why anything in that article would make Darwin "not your hero" since it's basically about how people, in the past, used a false understanding of what Darwin's theory said to do bad things...

The article states that Darwin used his theories to justify his racist beliefs:

``What that misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues. He asserted that different races of mankind had traveled different distances along the evolutionary path - white Caucasians were at the top of the racial hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below.''

Ooooooh, that bit... I kinda ignored it since it's not true.  That little chestnut is an invention that creationists particularly like to repeat because they seem to think it helps their case to slander or libel poor defenseless old scientists long since dead.  If Darwin were still alive, he could retire with the money from the Libel suits... just for one thing, the whole concept of 'more evolved' runs entirely counter to the entire concept of evolution and natural selection as put forth by Darwin.

I'm afraid to say, the guy that Time magazine interviewed did not do the research(or, possibly, lied, but I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt).

I didn't THINK that was right.... 

It's annoying that they pick on Darwin when they don't pick on, say, Galileo anymore....

[King Of Hearts]

Now dont you get me started on Galileo and his non-Ptolemian lies! Earth revolving around the sun, what a card. 

[superluser]

Ooooooh, that bit... I kinda ignored it since it's not true.  That little chestnut is an invention that creationists particularly like to repeat because they seem to think it helps their case to slander or libel poor defenseless old scientists long since dead.  If Darwin were still alive, he could retire with the money from the Libel suits... just for one thing, the whole concept of 'more evolved' runs entirely counter to the entire concept of evolution and natural selection as put forth by Darwin.

It's clearly wrong and contrary to evolutionary theory, and even wrong according to the theory that Darwin himself should have known, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Darwin didn't have misconceptions about his own theory.  I took the article at face value on this, mainly because I don't have time to factcheck on Thanksgiving, but also because I really don't care.  If anyone can debunk the claims of Darwin and racism, I'll gladly acknowledge that the article was wrong, but it wouldn't be the last time a scientist had misconceptions about a theory he helped develop (like the geneticist who had rather odd ideas about trait inheritance and on IQ).

Science does not depend on any one person, and the fact that there are misinformed people of great stature does not reflect on the science itself.  It does reflect on a society (or in this case, societies) that encouraged racist thinking, though.

[Eibborn]

Yeah, that was an extremely popular theory among plenty of white folks back then. I wouldn't be surprised if it is true that Darwin believed it. It hardly makes his scientific theories less sound, though. Fact of the matter is that if you have a hero who was alive before... being optimistic here, the 1900s, he or she was probably racist! Respecting your fellow humans hasn't always been as popular as it is today.

The rest of the article is like people who say that Christianity is bad because of the Crusades- it just doesn't stand up to logic. The mistakes of people who misinterpret his work aren't Darwin's responsibility.

[Vidar]

Darwin was a product of his time, and many of his views, when placed in a modern context, would be considered racist. He grew up in Imperial Britain, one of the most ethnocentric societies of that time.
However, of the people of that society Darwin was amongst the most egalitarian. He deplored slavery of every kind, and criticized the attitude of his peers of people of differing ethnicities.
For his time Darwin was amongst the least racist, and it's unfair to place his archaic ideas in a modern context and ignoring the prevailing attitudes of his time.
If president Lincoln's ideas of race where published today without any historical context, they would seem just as racist, but no-one is accusing Lincoln of racism, because in the historical context, like Darwin, he wasn't racist.

The theory of evolution has been misunderstood rather a lot, and warped version of it have been used as a guide for atrocities. None of this is Darwin's fault. He set out to make a descriptive theory of biology, not to state how things ought to be. I'm quite convinced that Darwin would be abhorred by things such as eugenics as implemented in the US in the late 19th and early 20th century, and as implemented by Nazi Germany.

[Baal Hadad]

I don't remember where I heard this, and I don't know how to confirm either way, but I heard somewhere that the Nazis DIDN'T accept evolution, and that their very ideology wouldn't allow it.  Effectively that the idea of associating Nazism with "social Darwinism" was a misconception.

I don't know how true that is (or if it's true at all), but certainly Nazi ideology has nothing to do with NATURAL selection.  Darwin said some members of a population are better adapted to their environment and thus are more likely to have viable descendants.  So-called "social Darwinism" as practiced by Nazis was entirely UN-natural, not even allowing nature a chance by killing or sterilizing those they deemed "inferior."  If they really believed in anything like "Darwinism" (perverted or not), you'd think they'd step back and do nothing, confident in the belief that nature would wipe out "inferiors" without them having to lift a finger.  The only way in which they could justify that as "self-preservation" was by painting Jews and communists and etc. as dangerous monsters who would do likewise to them if allowed free reign.

So it's even less Darwin's fault than if they had taken him at his word.

[Alondro]

I'm not questioning evolution.  That it happens is absolute fact.  We can see bacteria and viruses evolving right before our very eyes.  The swine flu is an influenza virus that has evolved into a new form which can sneak past our immune response.  Evolution as defined is now merely genetic change over time.  And it is an absolute fact that genes change with the passage of time through various means of mutation.  

My point is that it's rather silly to hold scientists as heroes because of their ideas.  When you put someone up on a pedestal, you risk closing your mind to any alternative ideas other than those proposed by the object of your adoration.  Idolization in any form is dangerous to intelligent thought, so I think it hypocritical that scientists would do this.  It's one thing to admire someone's intellectual prowice and their discoveries; but once a person gets to the point of holding celebrations, one must begin to question the bias of their thought.

I should think, in practical terms of sheer benefit to human society, there are plenty of other scientists who deserve the same cheer Darwin receives, if not more so, for their revolutionary ideas which have not simply changed a way of thinking, but the way people live.

I especially don't have heroes in science, even those who literally put their lives at risk to hold fast to the truths they discovered.  That is admirable, though I don't believe it qualifies as heroic, as may insane people will also throw their lives away for beliefs that are absurd.  And too, there have been men of science who have mistakenly held onto false ideas for their entire lives, enduring great scorn in the process.  Simply holding onto a belief to the brink of death is not what I call heroic.  People proffer theories and stick to them like glue.  That is more of what I'd call stubbornness or tenacity, not heroism.  Darwin just happened to come up with a more logical idea for the changes in life that the fossil record was revealing.  Darwin's theory took hold more because of the time in history and the general questioning of all things religious that occured at the turn of the century, as dinosaurs and antiquity in general soared in popularity and science exploded at a pace never before seen.  A century earlier, and it might have been squelched until someone else advanced it at this later time.  Darwin happened to be at the right place at the right time with his theory.  It simply doesn't meet the definition of heroism.

The risk Oscar Schindler took to save Jewish lives is far more of what I would consider heroic.  

And I don't hold a particular theory up as absolute truth, because we don't know the absolute truth.  What began life and if there is a reason why it began are the questions for which the ultimate answer will go a long way to explaining all things to at last reveal if there is a purpose to the universe, or if random chance rules over all and all is an inevitable futility in a finite universe that will one day in the far future wink out forever into utter frigid darkness.

The one who can find that answer, perhaps, would be one I might consider a hero.  For nothing would change the world more than having that an absolute answer to those questions which humans have pondered since they first though to ask "Why?".

The theory of evolution itself is still evolving.  For instance, we only recently found out that the pattern of certain molecules attached to DNA can be inherited:  acetylation and methylation, most notably.  And this pattern may then alter the evolutionary path of organisms in response to environmental chemicals rather than a change in DNA itself.  

It's another nuance to consider in evolutionary trends.  Darwin was a man with an idea.  A compelling, but incomplete, idea.  Through his associations and careful documentation, and the changes in society and philosophy at the time, the idea took hold.  Close adherence to the scientific method led to the revelations, not strength of character or righteous indignation.  And so, while Darwin was a very fine example of a scientist, I simply cannot see him as a heroic figure.

That's my point, now that I finally have time to think upon wording it properly.  

[Reese Tora]

there's nothing wrong with not holding him as a hero; I don't, but you put it out as thought he was suddenly "oh noes, bad man!" because of the article you linked.

I agree that there are lots of scientists who should be celebrated for their lasting contributions to the body of knowledge that humanity holds, but it seems as though only the scientists who were pioneers in being scientists, period, ever get much recognition for their discoveries (with notable exceptions like Einstein) outside of the circles of science in which their discoveries fall.

[Omega]

Oh gawd, they're pulling Finnish school shootings into this. I dislike how the author uses that "incident" to bolster his argument and I doubt that what he says is entirely correct.


Okay look, what I'm about to say, I will say as a bioscientist, i.e. I will produce conclusions that I've made through information provided to me.

*ahem*

The term "more evolved" should be regarded with extreme skepticism, because evolution itself doesn't have a shape or direction as most people understand it. A butterfly with very colorful wings might attract a mate more easily but it might also get eaten by a ken eyed predator. On definition for evolution is that a species mutates into more successful species over time. ((Darwin's theory was that the new species will prosper while other(s) will wither and die)).
This raises a question: How do me measure the success in biological scale?
If we measure how well an organism can spread its genome to the next generation, or how well it can cope with the environment, then the bacteria would be the most successful species in this planet.

Now if we were, and god forbid if we do, to compare different peoples with each other we should notice that there are more similarities than there are differences. Still the human mind seems to pick these differences more keenly for some reason. Black people have commonly better physic, asians have the largests populations in the world, white people seem to have made most of the great inventions during a the last millennium (and a great deal during this one).
These are all just stereotypes, but we have to remember that the stereotypes have to come from somewhere. It could be genes, but stating that one race is better than the other one is racists, so many researchers avoid the subject. A good example is an unnamed sociologist, who discovered that men scored generally better in university/college/high school exams than women. When he tried to bring this up he was fired. why? My theory is that is results, no matter how true they might've been, would have provoked "wrong" kind of stereotypes.

As a scientist (what I claim to be by now), I find it dreadful that some information needs to be silenced or fabricated even because of social taboos.

[superluser]

I meant to comment on this before:

Effectively that the idea of associating Nazism with "social Darwinism" was a misconception.

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution.  It may be true or false (though I'm leaning towards false), but it exists in a realm entirely independent of the theory of biological evolution.  Evolution would claim that certain social traits which the Social Darwinists claim to be bad may persist in a population because they serve some purpose, which the Social Darwinists would vehemently deny.

[Vidar]

Oh gawd, they're pulling Finnish school shootings into this. I dislike how the author uses that "incident" to bolster his argument and I doubt that what he says is entirely correct.


Okay look, what I'm about to say, I will say as a bioscientist, i.e. I will produce conclusions that I've made through information provided to me.

*ahem*

The term "more evolved" should be regarded with extreme skepticism, because evolution itself doesn't have a shape or direction as most people understand it. A butterfly with very colorful wings might attract a mate more easily but it might also get eaten by a ken eyed predator. On definition for evolution is that a species mutates into more successful species over time. ((Darwin's theory was that the new species will prosper while other(s) will wither and die)).
This raises a question: How do me measure the success in biological scale?
If we measure how well an organism can spread its genome to the next generation, or how well it can cope with the environment, then the bacteria would be the most successful species in this planet.

Now if we were, and god forbid if we do, to compare different peoples with each other we should notice that there are more similarities than there are differences. Still the human mind seems to pick these differences more keenly for some reason. Black people have commonly better physic, asians have the largests populations in the world, white people seem to have made most of the great inventions during a the last millennium (and a great deal during this one).
These are all just stereotypes, but we have to remember that the stereotypes have to come from somewhere. It could be genes, but stating that one race is better than the other one is racists, so many researchers avoid the subject. A good example is an unnamed sociologist, who discovered that men scored generally better in university/college/high school exams than women. When he tried to bring this up he was fired. why? My theory is that is results, no matter how true they might've been, would have provoked "wrong" kind of stereotypes.

As a scientist (what I claim to be by now), I find it dreadful that some information needs to be silenced or fabricated even because of social taboos.

Not to mention there are numerous cultures abound that affect the people living in it in various ways, and it's difficult to tell if the various traits you mentioned are a byproduct of race, culture, or something else.