[escepticos] Evolución, racismo y creacionismo

["C. Mario del Río" <cdelrioc@...>]

    Para los que no recibis el E-SKEPTIC, ahí va algo interesante.

    Saludos

    Mario

----- Mensaje original -----
De: E-Skeptic <skeptic-admin en lyris.net>
Para: Skeptics Society <skeptics en lyris.net>
Enviado: domingo, 06 de mayo de 2001 17:27
Asunto: E-SKEPTIC: RACIST DARWIN, FOX MOON VIDEO, ETU MOVING TO FRIDAYS


> ----------------------------
> WAS DARWIN A RACIST? IS EVOLUTION A RACIST THEORY?
> By now most of you will have read or heard about the Louisiana leptons who
on
> May 4 voted 9-5 (in the House Education Committee) that Darwin's evil
> doctrine of evolution has led to racist ideologies. To wit, Louisiana
state
> Rep. Sharon Broome, D-Baton Rouge, who sponsored the resolution said it
would
> "shine a light on the history of racism." "Be it resolved that the
> Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies
of
> racism, and does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology
that
> certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others."
> Broome told the Baton Rouge Advocate that Darwin "teaches that some humans
> have evolved further than others" and that Darwin "holds that people of
color
> are 'savages'" and in so doing he has "provided the main rationale for
modern
> racism." It will soon go before the full House.
>
> I will write a more formal response for Scientific American and Skeptic,
but
> let me make a few quick off-the-cuff observations and demonstrate how it
is
> creationism that is the basis of racist ideology, not the theory of
evolution:
>
> 1. Darwin as a person was light-years ahead of most of his colleagues in
his
> anti-racist and anti-slavery sentiments, particularly hardened in his
travels
> in South America where he witness many abuses that sickened him. (Alfred
> Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of Natural Selection, was also ahead of
his
> time in championing women's suffrage and the rights of the poor and
> marginalized in society). Darwin deplored the mistreatment of other
groups,
> made all the more remarkable considering his privileged status as a landed
> aristocrat. So it is ironic that the theory is being labeled as racist
when
> the two founders of the theory were exceptional for their anti-racist
stances.
>
> 2. Even if the theory of evolution could be directly linked to racist
> ideologies, we could not tag Darwin with the label, since the creator of a
> theory and the theory itself are two different entities.
>
> 3. Blaming Darwin and the theory of evolution for racism and racist
> ideologies is a little like blaming Gutenberg for creating the machine
that
> would eventually print Mein Kampf. The creator of something cannot be held
> responsible for how others use that creation. Of course, social Darwinism
was
> used to justify all sorts of political ideologies, ranging from pure
> free-market capitalism to socialism and even communism. So clearly the
theory
> itself is value-neutral.
>
> 4. More specifically, did the Nazis use Darwinian evolution to justify
their
> ideologies? Yes and no. This is a very complex story. I wrote a paper in
> graduate school on this (never published) in which I tried to make a solid
> connection between 19th-century social Darwinism and Hitler, but, frankly,
> it's a bit of a reach even when you try mightly to find one (as graduate
> students are wont to do when trying to impress their professors). Actually
> Darwin isn't even in the story. You have to begin with Ernst Haeckle and
> follow his philosophy of monism and its various mutations in the early
20th
> century, some strands of which were picked up by some Nazis, where a tiny
bit
> might have trickled down to AH himself, but more strongly to Himmler and
his
> cronies in the SS. In my book Denying History I have a whole chapter on
this
> (where I finally found a home for some of the research in my originally
> unpublished paper) in connection to the Wannsee Conference protocols in
which
> one finds the following passages:
>
> "Under appropriate direction the Jews are to be utilized for work in the
East
> in an expedient manner in the course of the final solution. In large
(labor)
> columns, with the sexes spearated, Jews capable of work will be moved into
> these areas as they build roads, during which a large proportion will no
> doubt drop out through natural reduction. The remnant that eventually
remains
> will require suitable treatment; because it will without doubt represent
the
> most resistant part, it consists of a natural selection [naturliche
Auslese]
> that could, on its release, become the germ-cell of a new Jewish revival.
> (Witness the experience of history.)"
>
> What's going on here is that the Nazis were making every use they could of
> their slave labor, and having them die out due to overwork, starvation,
and
> disease was fine, but it was not enough to achieve a final solution. By
> January 20, 1942, when 15 high-ranking Nazi leaders met at a beautiful
home
> owned by Reinhard Heydrich overlooking a lake in the suburbs of Berlin
> (located at 56-58 Am Grossen Wannsee--you can still go there and take a
tour
> of the place, which is now a museum), it was clear that the final solution
> could not be achieved through these means and that "another solution" had
to
> be implemented. Why? Because if even a small "remnant" remains there could
be
> a "natural selection" that would lead to a "Jewish revival." In other
words,
> every last one had to be exterminated.
>
> Now, this is not a direct link to Darwin or the theory of evolution, but
it
> is a clear use of the concepts of selection and extinction. But as I
pointed
> out, you can read equally potent misuses of evolutionary theory among
> capitalists and socialists of the early 20th century (and even still
today).
>
> 5. Most importantly, and ironically, the theory of evolution is
ANTI-racist,
> and the creationist doctrine that it replaced is a far superior system for
> creating an intellectual basis for racism. The creationist model is based
on
> the Platonic essentialism that said all things are created as particular
> "kinds" that cannot be changed. Of course, all pre-Darwinian naturalists
> recognized that species varied, and they even recognized that there were
> mechanisms in nature that curbed varieties and kept them from varying too
far
> from their original "essence." It was Darwin's and Wallace's particular
> genius to stand this system on its head and show that this mechanism,
instead
> of winnowing away the extreme edges of a species' varieties, gradually
> changed these varieties into new species. (Thus, when one reads so-called
> Darwinian precursors, such as Lyell, who described this mechanism, one is
> really reading about this system that kept all essences pure.)
>
> This Platonic essentialism, when wedded to the great chain of being (see
Owen
> Lovejoy's classic book of that title), allowed intellectuals to rank
essences
> from lowly stones to lofted angels, with humans between the apes and
angels,
> and within the human essences, blacks closest to apes, European white
males
> closest to the angels. This is creationism pure and simple, and it is
racist
> to the core. The theory of evolution, in replacing the creationist
doctrine,
> also replaced the racist ideology embedded within it.
>
> In other words, the Louisiana leptons have got the story precisely bass
> akwards.
> -----------------------------
> Michael Shermer is the Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Director of the
> Skeptics Society, host of the Skeptics Science Lecture Series at Caltech,
> columnist for Scientific American, and author of Why People Believe Weird
> Things, How We Believe, and The Borderlands of Science.
>


> If this message was forwarded from a friend and you'd like to join
> the distribution list (it's FREE), e-mail join-skeptics en lyris.net