RE: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong

What I think I hear you saying, Jack, is that Campolo has it partly right.
He obviously has missed or overlooked the fact that Darwin was against the
oppression of men through slavery, yet there does seem to be a bias in
Darwin's mind against the "lower orders" or races of mankind? (I think
Gregory's question about whether any of us have actually read Descent of Man
is valid - I certainly haven't, so until I do, I hesitate taking too strong
an opinion based on one side of apparently conflicting viewpoints on his
writings.)

If Darwin did have racist tendencies, has anyone considered the irony that
many Christians in the U.S., particularly in the South, did (before Darwin,
and in some places still do) consider the Negro to be an inferior race; yet,
many will join Campolo in condemning Darwin for his presumed prejudice
against certain races? Is it just possible that racism and oppression of
"other" humanity is a fundamentally human problem, not something that came
about as a result of Darwin's theories? This was part of my thoughts in
response to a recent tirade I heard, blaming evolution for every modern
evil, such as genocide, drugs, sexual immorality, etc. (quoting Answers in
Genesis).

Jon Tandy

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jack Haas
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 9:49 AM
To: Michael Roberts; ASA list
Subject: Re: [asa] Campolo gets it wrong

Michael,

Thank you for bringing this article to our attention.

There has been much discussion on the list on "darwinism," but little on the
thinking of Darwin. The recent Darwin's
Sacred Cause (DSC) (Desmond and Moore 2009) sheds much new light on the man,
his anti-slavery roots, his experiences
with slavery, and motives (indeed passion) for developing his theory of
common descent. DSC has the extensive references
that one would expect from these authors.

Their 1991 book Darwin contains the same broad picture, but in far less
detail.

Darwin had to contend with the slavery culture of the UK and US and
"sciences" that argued separate creation
of each race. Read the book to get a more human picture of the man and his
"sacred cause."

This is not to say that he did not share the English view that that they
were on the top of the heap. His point was that the pigmy
and the englishman were all part of the human family. Sadly, he could not
cut himself off from an elitist mentality that disparaged
the "lower orders" and "cultures of color." Have we today, even in a PC
climate?
Jack Haas
    

Michael Roberts wrote:

Something from Christian Today. .

It seems Campolo does not understand Darwin at all .

What's wrong with Darwinism?

by Tony Campolo

Posted: Friday, February 27, 2009, 12:45 (GMT)

Font Scale:A <javascript:fontSz(9);> A <javascript:fontSz(12);> A
<javascript:fontSz(18);>

 <javascript:viewpic(22647,10177)> What's wrong with Darwinism?

 <javascript:viewpic(22647,10177)> Enlarge this pictureEnlarge this picture
<javascript:viewpic(22647,10177)>

Tony Campolo

Many supporters of the principle of separation of church and state say that
the Intelligent Design Theory of creation ought not to be taught in public
schools because that it contains a religious bias.

They say that Intelligent Design proponents suggest that the evolutionary
development of life was not the result of natural selection, as Charles
Darwin suggested, but was somehow given purposeful direction and, by
implication, was guided by God.

Arguing in favour of what they believe is a non-prejudicial science, they
contend that children in public schools ought to be taught Darwin's
explanation of how the human race evolved, which they claim is value-free
and dependent solely on scientific evidence. Nothing could be further from
the truth!

In reality, Darwin's writings, when actually read, express the prevalent
racism of the nineteenth century, and endorse an extreme laissez faire
political ideology that legitimates the neglect of the suffering poor by the
ruling elite.

Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in
public schools seldom have taken the time to read what he had to say. If
they even knew the full title of his book, which is On the Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the
Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism
propagated by this controversial theorist.

Then, if they had gone on to read his second book, The Descent of Man, it is
likely that they 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 civilisation.

In The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin went so far as to rank races in terms
of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas. He further
proposed the extermination of those races which he "scientifically" defined
as inferior. To not do so, he claimed, would result in those races, which
have much higher birth rates than his designated superior races, exhausting
the resources needed for the survival of better people, and eventually
dragging down all of civilization.

Darwin even argued against advanced societies wasting time and money on
caring for those who are insane, or suffer from birth defects. To him, these
unfit members of our species ought not to survive.

In case you think that Darwin sounds like a Nazi, you are not far from the
truth. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who provided much of the propaganda for
the Nazi party, made Darwin's theories the basis for his polemics. The
Pulitzer Prize winner, Marilynne Robinson, in her insightful essay on
Darwin, points out that the German nationalist writer, Heinrich von
Treitschke, and the biologist, Ernst Haeckel, also drew on Darwin's writings
as they helped Hitler develop those racist ideas that led to the Holocaust.

Those creationists who fear Darwin because his theories contradict their
literal Biblical belief that creation occurred in six 24-hour days, do not
get at the real dangers of Darwinism. They do not realise that an
explanation of the development of biological organisms over eons of time
really does not pose the great threat to the dignity of our humanity that
they suppose. Instead, they, along with the rest of us, should really fear
the ethical implications of Darwinism.

I hope that in school our children will be taught that it is up to science
to study the processes that gave birth to the human race. But, as postmodern
as it may be, I also want them to learn that whatever science discovers
about our biological origins, there is, nevertheless, a mystical quality in
human beings that makes each of us sacred and of infinite worth.

Personally, I hold to the belief that, regardless of how we got here, we
should recognise that there is an infinite qualitative difference between
the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never
recognised this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.

Tony Campolo is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Eastern University and
served as pastoral counsellor to former President Bill Clinton.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.