[...]
> I concede that "evolution" does not literally "grant" anything to
>anyone, the ostensible grammar of my original sentence notwithstanding.
>PEOPLE "infer" or claim theoretical connections between e.g. concepts and
>consequences. I only suggested that inferring a logical connection between
>purely naturalistic evolution and racism is not so easily dismissible.
> Personally, I still understand how some people WITHOUT racist
>predispositions can plausibly correlate a naturalistic and non-theistic
>"survival of the fittest" mentality with racism. Philosophically, the
>problem is how one can ever justify ANY transcending value that would
>condemn a racist attitude.
Consider the following two traits:
1) awareness of the scientific principles of evolution, which we
may briefly summarize as "survival of the fittest".
2) an inclination to act on said principles to promote one's own
survival.
is there any evidence that individuals, groups, societies, races
etc. possessing this combination of traits has actually been
successful in promoting their own survival? In other words, do
these traits make a group of individuals more or less fit for
survival? It seems to me that there is considerable evidence
that such traits do not support survival. The Third Reich is dead.
The slave oriented economy of the south is dead.
> Claiming that "modern [non-theistic] evolutionary theory does more
>to counter racism than support it" seems astounding to me. And I certainly
>need more than an assertion that "modern evolutionary theory" leads to the
>conclusion that "race" is a "bogus concept." If organisms can evolve
>non-theistically into different "species," then they can certainly so evolve
>into "races" with differing strengths and weaknesses that could eventually
>serve as prototypes for an emerging superior strain (and even specie). And
>based on naturalistic and nontheistic presuppositions, I would contend that
>"there ain't nothing one can legitimately do about it."
I can agree to some extent here. For example, it seems to me perfectly
reasonable to accept as a working hypothesis that geographically
isolated humans evolved into different races. Carrying this idea any
further will most likely carry one outside the bounds of science.
For example, deciding which race is "better" is purely subjective
and cannot be supported scientifically. For example, is it only
coincidence that the various dilberts using these "scientific"
justifications for racism always consider their own race to be the
superior one? I mean, if there were some objective criteria involved
it seems kind of unlikely that the investigator would always find
himself in the superior race.
Secondly, how does the creationist or theistic explanation for the
existence of different races differ from the evolutionary one? All
races are descended from Adam. Yet the races are different, why?
I think many creationists allow for (micro)evolution to account
for the different races, but with God intervening in some way. But
why did God make the races different and if they are different surely
they will have different strengths and weaknesses. Isn't it painfully
obvious to any rational person that God used the special climate
of Africa to shape a subservient people to serve as slaves to
the superior white race? And isn't it obvious that in his graciousness
God endowed Blacks with a lower intelligence so that they wouldn't
suffer too much in their servitude?
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"God forbid that we should give out a dream of
our own imagination for a pattern of the world"
-- Francis Bacon