The Rest of the Story: Darwin

Posted: May 8, 2014 in books
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a little off topic but it’s important to me. You see we’re not being told the whole story and the deception is insidious. I also wonder how many people would throw Darwin under the bus if they knew. I know I did.

When you see his book The Origin of Species, this is usually all you see on the cover.

And that would be fine but it’s not the whole title. The title of the book was originally On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and yes it as bad as it looks, maybe worse. Darwin had an agenda in his theory. He was trying to prove that whites were superior. See for yourself.

Now to be clear, I’m not a guy with an axe to grind about evolution, but we’re pushing this theory as if it were absolute truth and given what is behind the theory, I think at the very least we may want to look for a better source.

By the way if you think I am overstating this, check out this article from Tony Campolo.

Tomorrow we return to creative arts ministry.

Oh but I do still have one question about evolution…

  1. Tienny says:

    Dave, thanks for the info


  2. Evolution was not discovered by Darwin. It was accepted well before Darwin came along. What he discovered is Natural Selection. So far as we know, that is the best explanation of how living things evolve. And Social Darwinism was neither created nor promoted by Darwin. Others used The Origin of Species to advocate racism. Darwin never intended for his book to be applied to humans. In Darwin’s day ‘race’ simply meant ‘species.’ The terms were not used as strictly as they are used now because race was not inherently problematic as it is today.

    • amokarts says:

      Well not to be argumentative or enter into a debate. I wondered that very thing (i.e. if the word race referred to species in Darwin’s day) when I first heard the original title, but I did more digging and found this as part of the article I referenced in my post:

      ” If they then had gone on to read his next book, The Descent of Man (1871) they likely would be shocked to learn that among Darwin’s “scientifically”-based proposals was the elimination of “the negro and Australian peoples,” which he considered to be savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilization. In this second book, Darwin ranked races in terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas; and then went on to propose the extermination of races he defined as inferior. If this were not done, he claimed, those inferior races, with their much higher birthrates than “superior” races, would exhaust the resources needed for the survival of better people, eventually dragging down all civilization (see page 501 in the Modern Library edition, 1936). Darwin even argued that advanced societies should not waste time and money on caring for the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.”

      Not sure how anyone could defend him after that…

      The only other thing I would say is you made the comment that race was not as inherently problematic as it is now. Did you really mean to say that? The Origin of Species was published November 24, 1859. You’ll recall most of the world was embroiled in a bit of controversy that was at least in part about race and slavery, that would soon explode into the American Civil War. Pretty problematic to me.

      • Have you actually read either book? I’m a historian who focuses on studying science and religion in Europe during the Victorian and Edwardian eras. My partner is a biologist. Did Darwin, to a certain degree, believe that ‘the white man’ was more civilized than non-Europeans? Yes. You won’t find any well-known European at the time that didn’t believe that to a certain degree. But Darwin was quite progressive for his time. Rather than wanting to civilize the ‘savages,’ Darwin was more interested in learning about them. And even if Darwin was a racist, that is no reason to assume that he was wrong. Natural Selection is right or wrong independently of whether or not Darwin was racist. Many scientists were, for one reason or another, not good people. Their science is still used because they were right.

      • I said the word ‘race.’ Not the ideologies that we now associate with race. Words change over time. No, race was not inherently problematic because people didn’t make it problematic. Really, the word ‘race’ didn’t become a problem until the 1990’s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.