Monthly Archives: July 2021

Charles Darwin, nineteenth century English naturalist, is known as one of the most brilliant minds in history. He was a curious intellectual and a brave adventurer, well-liked by those who knew him personally and greatly revered in the scientific community. His 1859 and 1871 books, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, enlightened the world with a transformative understanding of life that became the foundation of modern biological thought. But theres a darker side of Darwin, a side that perhaps calls into question his prized intellect and cherished legacy. Darwins writing was racist, and discriminatory beliefs and practices follow directly from his theories. If youre a lover of evolution or biology major like I am, you may be tempted to reject that claim. But hear me out: Support for the idea that Darwins theories are racist may come from where you least expect it.

Id only heard of Darwins dark side in passing, and Id always assumed that Darwins critics were driven by ignorance or ulterior motives. But as I scrolled by debates online about Darwins theories, I noticed something peculiar: Darwins defenders most often cited his abolitionist identity, notes from his diaries, or quotes from people who knew Darwin. His accusers, on the other hand, often directly cited text from The Descent of Man. Conclusions drawn from the authorial approach to the question, in which defenders focused on proving that Darwin himself was not a racist, starkly contradicted conclusions drawn from the approach of consulting Darwins text itself. Im familiar with Darwins theories, but I had never actually read his books; I suspect the same is true for most of you. However, I found that to determine whether or not Darwins theories are racist, the text of his books is revealing and conclusive. Information outside the text of The Descent of Man can help us understand the man behind the pen, but it does nothing to soften the brutal racism and white supremacism found in the text of his theory.

Although best known for On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as savages: It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages. Darwin explains that the highest races and the lowest savages differ in moral disposition and in intellect (36). The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have low morality, insufficient powers of reasoning, and weak power of self-command (97). Darwins specific consideration of intellectual capacities is especially alarming. He begins with animals: No one supposes that one of the lower animals reflects whence he comes or whither he goes,what is death or what is life, and so forth (62). His remarks soon expand to humans. How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence (62). Darwin writes that Australians are incapable of complex thought, and insinuates that they are akin to lower animals: His perspective on non-European races is incredibly prejudiced and absurd. Modern evolutionary scholars and teachers tend to ignore or omit that component of Darwins theory, but it hasnt gone completely unnoticed. For example, Rutledge Dennis examined Darwins role in scientific racism for The Journal of Negro Education and found that in Darwins world view, talent and virtue were features to be identified solely with Europeans (243). White supremacy is clearly embedded in The Descent of Man, regardless of Darwins brilliance or the accuracy of the rest of his theory.

Darwin makes a disturbing link between his belief in white supremacy and his theory of natural selection. He justifies violent imperialism. From the remotest times successful tribes have supplanted other tribes. At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations (160). Darwins theory applies survival of the fittest to human races, suggesting that extermination of non-white races is a natural consequence of white Europeans being a superior and more successful race. Further, Darwin justifies violently overtaking other cultures because it has happened regularly throughout natural history. The arc of Darwins evolutionary universe evidently does not bend toward justice: He has no problem with continuing the vicious behavior of past generations. Claims such as those made evident in the title of a 2004 book, From Darwin to Hitler, may not be as alarmist as they seem.

Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the western nations of Europe now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization (178). Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans exterminate and replace the worlds savage races, and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla (201). Read that last line again if you missed it: Darwins theory claims that Africans and Australians are more closely related to apes than Europeans are. The spectrum of organisms is a hierarchy here, with white Europeans at the top and apes at the bottom. In Darwins theory, colored people fall somewhere in between. Modern human is essentially restricted only to white Europeans, with all other races viewed as somehow sub-human.

The text of The Descent of Man clearly contains a racist and white supremacist ideology, but not everyone who reads Darwins theory believes that the text tells the entire story. Adrian Desmond and James Moore argue against the idea that Darwins theories are racist in their 2009 book, Darwins Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwins Views on Human Evolution. As the title suggests, Desmond and Moore claim that Darwins intent in studying evolution was actually to bolster the abolitionist cause. Darwins starting point was the abolitionist belief in blood kinship, a common descent (xvii). In response to Darwins defectors, they say that the real problem is that no one understands Darwins core project. No one has appreciated the source of that moral fire that fueled his strange, out-of-character obsession with human origins (xix). How can Desmond and Moore claim to know Darwins intent? They reached their conclusions after an exhaustive search through a wealth of unpublished family letters and a massive amount of manuscript material, and use Darwins notes, cryptic marginalia (where key clues lie) and even ships logs and lists of books read by Darwin. His published notebooks and correspondence (some 15,000 letters are now known) are an invaluable source (xx). Using these sources, Desmond and Moore attempt to make a substantial case against the idea that Darwin was racist, citing evidence such as the diary that Darwin kept during his Beagle voyage. Darwin writes of slavery, It makes ones blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty (quoted in Desmond and Moore, 183). Darwin often wrote thoughts that dont quite align with the ideas in The Descent of Man. In his theory, Darwin suggests that it is natural for more successful races to dominate over others, and speaks comfortably of white Europeans exterminating other races. However, he wrote in his diary that the white Man has debased his Nature & violates every best instinctive feeling by making slave of his fellow black (quoted in Desmond and Moore, 115). Desmond and Moore view Darwins later contradictions of his racist ideas in The Descent of Man as reason to interpret the text of Darwins theory cautiously.

Desmond and Moore also offer details of Darwins life that they claim are incongruent with his purported racism. Darwin came from a family that fought to emancipate Britains slaves, and many of his friends and readers were abolitionists as well. As a young man, Darwin took lessons in bird-stuffing from a local African American servant. Desmond and Moore write, Evidently the sixteen-going-on-seventeen year old saw nothing untoward in paying money to apprentice himself to a Negro, and the forty or so hour-long sessions which he had with the blackamoor through that frosty winter clearly made an impact (18). Desmond and Moore see Darwins willingness to associate with African Americans as evidence that he was not prejudiced. Finally, the authors bring up a story that is actually mentioned in The Descent of Man. When Darwin writes of similarities he has noticed between savages and himself, he mentions a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate (232). Again, Desmond and Moore see Darwins personal experiences with colored people as evidence that he is not biased against them; further, they believe this information should influence our interpretation of The Descent of Man.

A final argument made in favor of Darwin blames the time period in which he wrote. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education writes that Darwin, like [Abraham] Lincoln, believed in white supremacy, but he was far more enlightened and sympathetic to blacks than most white men of his time (39). In this view, The Descent of Man must be considered within the context of its conception, namely a period and location in which white supremacy was the norm.

The external information supplied by Darwins personal notes, experiences, context, etc. adds to our understanding of Darwin himself, but it cannot change our understanding of his theories. The question of whether Darwin was a racist man is separate from the question of whether his theory was racist, and the answer to the former question has no bearing on the latter. The text of The Descent of Man is undeniably racist, and readers only engage with the presented text: They dont know what Darwin wrote in his diary, whether his family supported abolition, or how much he interacted with African Americans, nor should a reader have to know these things in order to correctly interpret the text. The Descent of Man exists separate from its author and context. Claims that readers should not take the racism in Darwins theory literally in light of external information reject the nature of literature. As Roland Barthes says, a texts unity lies not in its origin but in its destination. Yet this destination cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history, biography, psychology; he is simply that someone who holds together in a single field all the traces by which the written text is constituted (148). Barthes argument is especially salient in this case because The Descent of Man was written so long ago, and Charles Darwin is long dead. Darwin and the context in which he wrote his theory have long passed, but the text lives on and will continue to exist as an independent entity that deserves to be interpreted as such.

Thus, the value of considering contextual details depends on which question we are asking. When wondering about Darwin himself, a full range of sources is applicable. However, when determining whether Darwins theories contain dangerous racial ideology, the alarming text of his theories cannot be at all softened or explained away with outside information. Now I understand why Ive never been asked in a biology class to read the original text of Darwins theories: Our contemporary reverence for Darwins gentlemanliness and the pure scientific brilliance of his theories is an overly optimistic illusion that shatters upon a closer look at his publications.

Works Cited

Barthes, Roland. The Death of the Author. In Image-Music-Text. Translated by Stephen Heath.Hill and Wang, 1978.

Blacks Less Likely to Accept Charles Darwins Dethronement of Mankind. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, vol 21. CH II Publishers, Autumn 1998. USA.

Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man. John Murray, 1871. Albemarle Street, London.

Dennis, Rutledge M. Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and the metaphysics of race. The Journal of Negro Education, 64:3. Howard University Press, 1995. USA.

Desmond, Adrian and Moore, James. Darwins Sacred Cause. Penguin Group, 2009. London.

View original post here:

The Dark Side of Darwinism | Philosophy for the Many

Gary Pinnell| Guest Columnist

What is vaccine Darwinism?

Darwinism is the theory that natural selection increases an individuals ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Or decreases. In economics, the weakest businesses fail. In history, the weakest civilizations fail.And in COVID-19, the weakest humans fail: the weakest immune systems and the weakest thinkers.

The strongest thinkers observed CDC guidelines: they wore masks, they washed hands; when vaccines became available, they rolled up sleeves.

The anti-vaxers? According to the National Institutes of Health, in 2009, about 60 percent of parents with children aged 24 to 35 months did not delay or refuse diphtheria, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella and polio vaccines.

About 26 percent of parents did delay or refuse vaccines; they selected their own children to test their own anti-vaccine theory. Now they risk themselves and their children for COVID-19.

Thats vaccine Darwinism.

Gary Pinnell, Oklahoma City

Originally posted here:

Letter to the editor: On vaccine Darwinism - Oklahoman.com

Photo: Statue of Charles Darwin, Shrewsbury Library, by Bs0u10e01 / CC BY-SA.

Editors note: Recently,Scientific Americanviciously smeared all critics of Darwinian theory with an article titled, Denial ofEvolution Is a Form of White Supremacy, by Allison Hopper. Aspromised, we are presenting some of our extensive past coverage of the tight links between racism and evolution.This article was originally published on June 25,2020.

Ive wondered if the marauding vandals will come eventually for the Darwin statues. I hope NOT, but lets face it between Francis Scott Key or Ulysses Grant, on one hand, and Charles Darwin on the other, whose work has done more to undergird racism? Theres no contest.

A classic episode ofID the Future, republished now, is eerie in its relevance to the culture at the moment. Host and science historian Michael Keas interviewed historian and Center for Science & Culture Senior Fellow Richard Weikart about the racial pseudoscience thats integral to the Darwinian scientific heritage.

As Professor Weikart explains, Darwins racism is notincidentalto his case for evolution. Its not as if he wasmerelya product of his time, with the reprehensible attitudes held by other upper class Brits when he wrote his books. Yes, he was anti-slavery. And yes, he embodied the racism that came before him. He didnt invent it. But he also used it as evidence for his theory. He believed that different races of humans represented biological variations (in intelligence, moral capacity, and more) on which the natural selection process could work, just as it could on finch beaks. His conclusion of a racial hierarchy with Africans at the bottom, his projection of eventual racial extermination, were no stray inference. The documentariesHuman ZoosandThe Biology of the Second Reichshow how Darwinian theory continued to motivate racism, eugenic drives, and genocide into the 20th century.

Weikart continues by noting that later Darwinists (such as Peter Singer) drew logical consequences from evolution, including that since all human beings are the product of random natural forces, they possess no special dignity. Human life is not precious. Or to put it another way, viaJohn Zmirak: NO LIVES MATTER. By contrast, the religious traditions that evolutionary theory pushes aside possess ample reason for respecting humans universally as equals, of identical value and dignity, no matter the color of their skin. Of course, there have been religious racists. But that is a contradiction with their professed faith. Those who call for vandalizing churches because ofdepictions of a white Jesusdont understand this.

On the other hand, while most evolutionists today reject scientific racism, with exceptions like James Watson they have no necessary reason for doing so. White nationalists of the Alt-Right appreciate that not as a bug but as a feature.

Download the podcast or listen to it here. Listen and learn.Find out more about Weikarts books here.

And say a prayer for the statues, all of them. Some have argued that the vandals have no agenda other than anarchy and destruction. Ill be persuaded of that if they pull down the Lenin statue in Seattle. Again, I hope they dont! In its way, it is a delightful if perverse symbol of our city. Lets hope Darwin and Lenin are both safe tonight, along with Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and other iconic historical figures.

The rest is here:

Darwinism and No Lives Matter - Discovery Institute

Darwinism revisited

Seven months ago I wrote a wishful thinking letter that most of the country would be vaccinated by now and that we would be on the road back to normalcy. Well, were here and yes, much of life has returned to pre-pandemic days. But we are also beginning a new surge with the more transmissible Delta variant. Epidemiologists have been on target every time with plenty of advance warning to take precautions, but are facing an increasingly uphill battle with the politicized resistance against the vaccines. Cynically, I felt comfortable in my bubble of vaccinated friends/family, citing that Darwinism would take care of the anti-vaxxers.

However, the caveat is now the warning that new, more dangerous variants are constantly evolving in the populations of the unvaccinated. This opens the door to the possibility that these new strains could make vaccines ineffective. Isnt it time for those who have not been vaccinated solely for reasons related to didnt get around to it or certain politicians/newscasters said they were dangerous to start to follow the science on keeping their loved ones safer? Finally, perhaps remembering which administration instituted Operation Warp Speed will convince them to get the shot(s).

Douglas Iseri

Traverse City

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Go here to read the rest:

Letter: Iseri | Letters To The Editor - Traverse City Record Eagle

WASHINGTON Breakthrough coronavirus cases have emerged in multiple offices in Congress, including the speakers. The line for in-house testing snakes through a long corridor and into a visitors center atrium. The Capitols doctor has warned of the possible return of a mask mandate.

The Delta variant has reached Capitol Hill, but a common enemy has only made recriminations and anger worse between the two political parties. Republicans, caught between a political base that is often resistant to vaccination and an imperative to save the lives of their voters, point their fingers at Democrats and blame them, without evidence, for covering up the viruss origins.

Democrats fault Republicans who have done little to push back against vaccine skeptics in their ranks, and even now are soft-pedaling their calls for people to take the shot.

Weve got people here whove refused to get vaccinated and are actually discouraging others to get vaccinated, said Representative Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. The Republican Party no longer lives in reality. Its pathetic.

For much of the vaccinated nation, the coronavirus resurgence is somewhere else. In states like Vermont, Hawaii and Massachusetts, where at least 84 percent of the adults have at one shot or two, surges in Alabama, Florida, Missouri and Arkansas are far, far away.

But the Capitol is one of the few places in America where red and blue mingle almost daily and resentment is high.

Congress is like a nationwide convention every single day, said Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democrat who has begun wearing a mask again, though he is fully vaccinated and 76.5 percent of adults in his state of Maryland have received at least one shot. There are people who have come from every corner, hamlet and precinct of the country. Its a petri dish for the development of political ideas, but also plagues.

Republicans point out that the most recent high-profile carriers of the current plague were Democrats, Texas legislators who fled Austin to stop passage of a measure restricting voting. Six of them all of whom said they were vaccinated then tested positive, and are suspected of infecting a senior aide to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The aide, also vaccinated, is mildly symptomatic.

I think that you as the press have a responsibility to ask questions of the Democrats as well, Representative Ronny Jackson, Republican of Texas, snapped on Thursday when he and other Republican doctors were asked how many in their conference had been vaccinated. How many of the Democrats are willing to say whether or not theyve been vaccinated? What about the Texas delegation from the Texas House, including the six that tested positive?

It is clear in the Capitol that the resurgence of the coronavirus which is once again filling intensive care units around the country is not pulling the nation together.

Some of my frustration comes from talking to former colleagues still working in the I.C.U., said Representative Ami Bera, Democrat of California and a doctor. The first year, they didnt have much to treat patients. They were intubating and just trying to keep them alive. Now for every patient theyre putting on a ventilator, this was absolutely preventable. Every one of them is unvaccinated.

To be fair, the Texas legislators who made a show of defiance, then brought the virus, spread fears in both parties. Representative Kim Schrier, Democrat of Washington and a pediatrician, said those six breakthrough cases were a wake-up call in the Capitol community.

On the House floor, at least among Democrats, masks are going back on. Lawmakers are sending staff members for testing. Ms. Pelosi and some senators have told aides to work from home just weeks after many of them returned to Capitol Hill.

July 24, 2021, 11:34 a.m. ET

And as lawmakers and aides look toward this fall, when school resumes before children under 12 are expected to have access to vaccines, their worries only worsen.

If youre in an area with a lot of unvaccinated people and you have unvaccinated kids, I would recommend you put your masks on again, Dr. Schrier said. If I had children under 12, I would be taking very big precautions right now.

It is still unclear how many Republicans in the House and Senate are vaccinated, as many of them have refused to say one way or the other. Both Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin who has pushed fringe theories about the virus have said they will not get the shot because they have already had Covid-19. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that people who have had the virus still be inoculated.)

Representative Lauren Boebert, Republican of Colorado, proudly proclaimed this month at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Dallas: Dont come knocking on my door with your Fauci ouchie. You leave us the hell alone. She was referring to Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who has become a boogeyman for the right.

Congresss attending physician, Dr. Brian P. Monahan, indicated that some remained unprotected when he pleaded this week with lawmakers in a memorandum: The Delta variant is a severe threat. I urge unvaccinated individuals to come for vaccination at any time.

Leadership aides say the number of unvaccinated lawmakers is slowly dwindling. The No. 2 House Republican leader, Steve Scalise of Louisiana, got his first shot on Sunday, a remarkable delay considering that one House Republican, Ron Wright of Texas, and one Republican member-elect from his home state, Luke Letlow, died of Covid-19.

Understand the State of Vaccine Mandates in the U.S.

Its startling to read about members getting vaccinated in July when they could have been vaccinated in December, Mr. Raskin grumbled.

But many Republicans will not divulge their vaccination status, even when pressed on whether they should be setting an example for their constituents.

We believe in health privacy. The bottom line is we believe it; it doesnt stop at the Covid door, Representative Andy Harris, Republican of Maryland and a doctor, said Thursday. It is every citizens right to choose to get a vaccine, and then to choose not to reveal whether theyve gotten a vaccine.

That kind of reluctance rankles Democrats. Andy Slavitt, a health policy expert who recently left the Biden White Houses pandemic response team, called out Mr. Paul by name for talking down the vaccine.

Why are we letting these people who are not working in our best interest to damage our country? he asked.

Mr. Paul, an ophthalmologist, shrugged it off and focused on the unproven theory that the novel coronavirus was created by scientists in a laboratory in Wuhan, China, maintaining that it could have been far worse.

Four million people have died in this pandemic with a 1 percent mortality rate. Theyre experimenting with SARS viruses that have a 15 percent mortality rate, he said. The good news about the Delta variant is that the vaccine seems to cover it. So does natural infection.

And the lawmakers who have been most vocal about questioning the efficacy of the vaccines, though slightly defensive, still persist. Mr. Johnson said he was only trying to provide transparency on the part of the federal government so that my constituents have as much information to make an informed choice for themselves as to whether to get vaccinated.

He then launched into a discourse on recent data showing continued coronavirus infections in Israel, which prominent vaccine skeptics have cited to cast doubt on the efficacy of getting inoculated. But those statistics do not tell the whole story. According to the most recent Israeli analysis, the vaccine is more than 90 percent effective against hospitalization.

Even beyond the Capitol, lawmakers frustration is showing. Representative Raul Ruiz, a California Democrat who was an emergency room doctor, said that he recently joked with a friend in his district who is a vaccine denier about the dire consequences of his beliefs.

This will prove Darwinism, Mr. Ruiz said he had told his constituent, because those with common sense who use their intelligence will survive.

He didnt sound as though he was joking.

Carl Zimmer contributed reporting.

Follow this link:

In the Capitol, the Delta Variant Spreads Worry and Partisanship - The New York Times