Charles Darwin (1871) The Descent of Man, 1st edition, pages 168 -169:
If anyone actually read Darwin, they might understand her despair.
Forward this by email to three of your friends.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
I received a comment attempting to explain the above passage - my comments are in between the *** ***
This passage (and a number of others from The Descent of Man) is often used by creationists to attack evolutionary theory.
***Many people attack evolutionary theory, not just the odious creationists. That is akin to arguing the nazis attacked stalinism. Plenty of people of all stripes attack stalinism, as they do evolution theory.***
I won't mount a full-scale defense of Darwin here, but I can tell you that the inferred bigotry in this passage is understandable, but in truth Darwin was much more progressive than the majority of his scientific peers.
***Irrelevant.***
In fact, at the time, polygenism was broadly supported in the scientific community, while Darwin was staunchly monogenist and frequently went against conventional wisdom by asserting that all humans were genetically the same species.
***There are many versions of Darwinism and evolution, and even Darwin had to keep recasting his hypothesis as counter arguments surfaced. Again irrelevant. ***
If anything, his views were very progressive for the era and much closer to our own.
***Perhaps your own, but certainly not mine.***
This passage, by the way, is not about racial inferiority (although I can see why it would set off alarm bells today), it is about the growing gap between humans of all kinds and their nearest non-human relatives.
***Not true: he states his thesis -
“The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; “
He is merely addressing an objection to evolution due to the existence of gaps, nothing about “growing gaps.” ***
When you ask why they teach "it" in schools, I assume you mean Darwinian thought on natural selection. The reason why they teach Darwin is pretty obvious: Natural selection is not just a popular hypothesis, it's accepted as truth by the entire scientific community.
***Simply not true, I’ve met countless scientists who consider it hokum. I am a consumer of science, and I’ve passed on it since it does not measure up to science. Accepting a hypothesis as truth is religion, not science.***
There are disagreements on some elements of evolutionary theory, but literally no scientist has suggested that natural selection is unsupported. And Darwin's work is historically a game-changing moment for science and our understanding of the natural world, so yes, it should be taught.
***Which version should be taught?***
One additional note: You're citing "The Decent of Man," which is not the source of most classroom lessons on Darwin; that would be "On the Origin of Species," which was published over a decade earlier and did not address any of the potentially offending language above.
***The cited passage was written by Darwin in response to objections to the earlier versions. It reflects considered and deliberate expression on the part of Darwin. Darwin was clarifying his earlier work, and emphasizing that the theory argued the inevitability of the extermination of the negro and the Australian (meaning those some call aborigines.) This has given much comfort to progressives who need a theory for who lives and dies. For example, progressive and celebrated author and playwrite George Bernard Shaw.***
By the way, even if he had been obtusely bigoted, his scientific writing shouldn't be purged from classrooms. There are plenty of slave-owning (and likely horribly racist) Founding Fathers in American history, and we trust students to separate their great thoughts from their despicable observations on race. This is not a new issue.
***The founding fathers struggled mightily to eliminate the evil of slavery, even the slaveholding ones. The claim is science is behind this, and there is no effort, nor should be, to eliminate this odious teaching. It is offensive enough to cause one student, a negro to be eliminated under this theory, to throw it all away in a classroom rant. Scientific racism is not a new issue.***
If anyone actually read Darwin, they might understand her despair.
Forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment