Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:59 am

This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the landmark work in which Darwin laid forth his theory of natural selection. While celebrations have emphasized the British naturalist's giant role in the advancement of human progress, British political journalist Dennis Sewell is not convinced. In a new book, The Political Gene: How Darwin's Ideas Changed Politics, he highlights how often - and how easily - Darwin's big idea has been harnessed for sinister political ends. According to Sewell, evolution is scientifically undeniable, but its contribution to human well-being is unclear.

Should we reassess Darwin's legacy?

Bicentennial celebrations have portrayed Darwin as a kindly old gentleman pottering around an English house and garden. What that misses is the way his ideas were abused in the 20th century and the way in which Darwin was wrong about certain key issues. He asserted that different races of mankind had traveled different distances along the evolutionary path - white Caucasians were at the top of the racial hierarchy, while black and brown people ranked below. [Racism] was a widespread prejudice in British society at the time, but he presented racial hierarchy as a matter of science. He also held that the poor were genetically second-rate - which inspired eugenics. (See a photo-essay on Darwin.)

In your research, you found vestiges of this warped way of thinking in an unexpectedly modern setting: school shootings.

Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that "stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing ... faster than the intelligent, strong-minded" ones. Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin's work and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The Columbine killers made similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric Harris, wore a "Natural Selection" shirt on the day of the massacre. These are examples of how easily Darwin's writings can lead to very disturbed ways of thinking.

You believe that Darwin should continue to be taught in schools. But how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world? Wasn't his great breakthrough to show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?

I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights.

Are you concerned that your ideas will be trumpeted by the creationist movement?

Science is a big enough interest group. It can look after itself. (Read "The Ever Evolving Theories of Darwin.")

We understand now that eugenics was an illegitimate science, so why even worry about it today?

The thinking behind eugenics is still present. Many senior geneticists point to a genetically engineered future. As the technology for this falls into place, there has also been an explosion of the field of evolutionary psychology that tries to describe every element of human behavior as genetically determined. What we will begin to see is scientists arguing for the use of genetics to breed out certain behavioral traits from humanity.

Is it that you oppose artificial selection in principle, or that you feel scientists are still too far away from a full understanding of genetics to be making such decisions?

Who is going to make the value judgment of what is human enhancement and what makes a human better? I don't feel comfortable with such judgments being left to scientists.

What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:42 am

I believe that Darwin's Theory is no longer a theory and should be recognized as factual. Richard Dawkins book "The Greatest Show On Earth" gives one pause for thought.

Of course, I guess a political journalist has better insight into evolution than a scientist.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:08 am

I saw a fantastic exhibit on Darwin in San Diego's Museum of Natural History on Monday. One huge section devoted to him and his studies with a tremendous amount of compelling documents and experiments.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:30 am

What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity?

What a fabulous question!

While it's obviously done a lot for human knowledge, has it enhanced our humanity? Gonna think about that one for awhile.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:07 am

koan;1266759 wrote: What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity?

What a fabulous question!

While it's obviously done a lot for human knowledge, has it enhanced our humanity? Gonna think about that one for awhile.

It's got us thinking about it rather than accepting blindly the diktat of religion that alone has enhanced our humanity IMO.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:21 am

gmc;1266773 wrote: It's got us thinking about it rather than accepting blindly the diktat of religion that alone has enhanced our humanity IMO.

So you think that it has replaced the apparent human need to discover how life started and why?

I have the possibly odd opinion that no matter what answer people decide upon it still serves a religious purpose.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:35 pm

koan;1266759 wrote: What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity?

What a fabulous question!

While it's obviously done a lot for human knowledge, has it enhanced our humanity? Gonna think about that one for awhile.In order to answer that question with any credence, one must have sufficient knowledge of evolution, which I'm sure you will go about doing being an intelligent person not motivated by fiction when it comes to fact.

The OP has many false suggestions and allegation's cleverly crafted by an apparently needful person of employment (assuming of course hes not into outright character assassination of Darwin), who obviously has not checked facts or read Darwin's work himself. However, it's nice to see that I belong to a forum which includes members of maturity such as those not easily swayed by hearsay.

It makes no sense to argue or present facts which refute the OP because I doubt the person responsible for posting such drivel will take any stake in it because she has obviously not checked facts or read Darwin"s work herself.

So here we stand left to argue with an article and not the person responsible for it.

Incidentally, Jazzy conveniently left out most of the final answer to the question posed, making it seem as if the question is her own. Here it is;

All things considered, do you believe Darwin was a great luminary in the path of human progress?

What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise.

Jazzy, do you care to comment on anything I've written here? Do you want to adopt Sewell's position and have at it? You did offer it up, you know!

heres the QandA Jazzy used to occupy our time with.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091125/h ... 9194248300

Jazzy · Post by **Jazzy** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:56 pm

I offered up this thread as I thought it might be a good discussion thread. I did not write the article and could not get the link to post up for me. The link that I used was Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy - TIME I also thank you for the link you posted for me. If you feel this is not an educational subject, I'm sorry I wasted your time on such "drivel."

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:03 pm

Jazzy;1266823 wrote: I offered up this thread as I thought it might be a good discussion thread. I did not write the article and could not get the link to post up for me. The link that I used was Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy - TIME I also thank you for the link you posted for me. If you feel this is not an educational subject, I'm sorry I wasted your time on such "drivel." :(How on earth can allegations such as Sewell claims be "a good discussion thread" without any citations or references unless one is attempting to inspire emotional fighting among members? I think its best to remember whose name and avatar is to the left when one offers up opinions from outsiders. All this article is is mostly unfounded hearsay. You hurt your own credibility when you do that. Think about it!

yaaarrrgg · Post by **yaaarrrgg** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:39 pm

Long but interesting:

The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:09 pm

Robert J;1266827 wrote: How on earth can allegations such as Sewell claims be "a good discussion thread" without any citations or references unless one is attempting to inspire emotional fighting among members? I think its best to remember whose name and avatar is to the left when one offers up opinions from outsiders. All this article is is mostly unfounded hearsay. You hurt your own credibility when you do that. Think about it!

Then why bother replying?

I think it's a great discussion thread and your own thread asking whether people believe in creation or evolution is no less likely to "inspire emotion fighting among members" so I also think you should watch your accusations.

You don't like the article. Fine.

We'd hate to waste any more of your time.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:36 pm

I don't see how anyone can refute Darwin's work at all.

So far all I've gathered is that "This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the landmark work in which Darwin laid forth his theory of natural selection.". The rest are religions that have and always will be threatened by Darwin's work. If it wasn't Darwin it would have been someone else later in life. What sets Darwin apart from others is his ability to abstain from societies prejudices. I give him more credit for going against the grain. His work was just what he loved and was natural to him.

Do I like Darwin's work?

It's the closest work I've ever seen to be the closest to the Bible so what do you think? :wah: :yh_wink

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:09 am

koan;1266780 wrote: So you think that it has replaced the apparent human need to discover how life started and why?

I have the possibly odd opinion that no matter what answer people decide upon it still serves a religious purpose.

No I said it has got us actually thinking about it rather than just accepting unquestioningly the various religious explanations for how life started and why.

It is an odd opinion but it is one shared by many, just as many can't grasp that the theory of evolution is not some kind of alternative religion.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:01 am

koan;1266941 wrote: Then why bother replying?

I think it's a great discussion thread and your own thread asking whether people believe in creation or evolution is no less likely to "inspire emotion fighting among members" so I also think you should watch your accusations.

You don't like the article. Fine.

We'd hate to waste any more of your time. Are you standing behind the article then?

the difference is I stand behind what I've written. The thread you mention is asking people what they think about a subject and offered them to present facts or thoughts as to why.

I bothered because the article attacks Darwin's credibility without any proof whatsoever, and is typical hearsay invented by religious groups.

My thread is manageable from the OP, this one isn't.

Following your logic then, anyone can as a third party post anything at all about anyone including you without any merit?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:06 am

Robert J;1266997 wrote: Following your logic then, anyone can as a third party post anything at all about anyone including you without any merit?

I don't see any problem with it. You know the OP, in such instances, may just be throwing topics out to discuss so they themselves can form their own opinions about it. At the very least give the OP a chance to do research after having presented the original suggestion.

I find nothing wrong with it.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:12 am

K.Snyder;1266999 wrote: I don't see any problem with it. You know the OP, in such instances, may just be throwing topics out to discuss so they themselves can form their own opinions about it. At the very least give the OP a chance to do research after having presented the original suggestion.

I find nothing wrong with it.According to Koans remarks, the only thing in the article worth discussing is the last question asked. Why not then start a thread asking that question rather than include unfounded hearsay? Thats a question for the person who started the thread but she probably won't offer any answer beyond what she already stated. Nobody needs to take any responsibility for the contents of the post, therefore it should not have been posted. It was completely unnecessary.

It's one thing to offer up current news as the OP usually does, but thats not what this article is, it's unfounded hearsay that she can simple walk away from and that's just not right.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:21 am

Robert J;1267000 wrote: According to Koans remarks, the only thing in the article worth discussing is the last question asked. Why not then start a thread asking that question rather than include unfounded hearsay? Thats a question for the person who started the thread but she probably won't offer any answer beyond what she already stated. Nobody needs to take any responsibility for the contents of the post, therefore it should not have been posted. It was completely unnecessary.

It's one thing to offer up current news as the OP usually does, but thats not what this article is, it's unfounded hearsay that she can simple walk away from and that's just not right.

I know you may disagree with the sentiment of the report but I don't think holding the producer of the OP accountable for it is appropriate. I don't think there's anything wrong with posting something to observe both sides of the argument. The OP doesn't have to agree with the report. It's brought about so that all can discuss it. The assumption being that "if one or two persons on Earth had participated in it then it must be correct to assume others will as well".

Jazzy can just as easily suggest she wishes to speak with one whom agrees with the OP so she may berate them as you feel entitled to do yourself.

I'm not trying to step on toes but I think you're overreacting.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:30 am

K.Snyder;1267003 wrote: I know you may disagree with the sentiment of the report but I don't think holding the producer of the OP accountable for it is appropriate. I don't think there's anything wrong with posting something to observe both sides of the argument. The OP doesn't have to agree with the report. It's brought about so that all can discuss it. The assumption being that "if one or two persons on Earth had participated in it then it must be correct to assume others will as well".

Jazzy can just as easily suggest she wishes to speak with one whom agrees with the OP so she may berate them as you feel entitled to do yourself.

I'm not trying to step on toes but I think you're overreacting.You can't have a discussion from both sides because there is nobody here to defend the article. Darwin is not present to defend himself either. Again if one wants to explore the question of: What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? Fine but it should have it's own thread so as not to be polluted by the content's from Sewell's yet to be flushed toilet water.

I'm done giving this ridiculous thread any merit.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 4:41 am

One last post!

Jazzy, I realize I've come at this hard. I mean no ill will toward you. You're a valuable member of this forum and I enjoy and appreciate the work you put into most of what you post.

I simplky wanted to get the point across that it's perhaps better to stick with pure factual stories unless you want to defend content when posting other peoples opinions. I understand that sometimes its difficult to decern fact from opinion these day's.

Peace!

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:55 am

K.Snyder;1266948 wrote: I don't see how anyone can refute Darwin's work at all.

So far all I've gathered is that "This year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, and Nov. 24 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, the landmark work in which Darwin laid forth his theory of natural selection.". The rest are religions that have and always will be threatened by Darwin's work. If it wasn't Darwin it would have been someone else later in life. What sets Darwin apart from others is his ability to abstain from societies prejudices. I give him more credit for going against the grain. His work was just what he loved and was natural to him.

Do I like Darwin's work?

It's the closest work I've ever seen to be the closest to the Bible so what do you think? :wah: :yh_wink

This brings up a question I've had about this, from the Holy Bible:

"Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them.

2. That the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he is also flesh; and yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty menwhich were of old, men of renown."

Perhaps these "daughters of men" were descended from apes (or aliens) or from the "giants" mentioned.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:51 pm

Zapata;1267061 wrote: This brings up a question I've had about this, from the Holy Bible:

"Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them.

2. That the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he is also flesh; and yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty menwhich were of old, men of renown."

Perhaps these "daughters of men" were descended from apes (or aliens) or from the "giants" mentioned.

Personally, it sounds like someone trying to get people to pi** and **it themselves every time lightening strikes

Haven't you ever wondered how utterly ironic it is to hear of someone having been struck by lightening!?! I mean JC!

!!

!!

"Oh, how terribly sad how did he die?" - "Sadly,......he was struck by lightening:yh_sad" - ":yh_worry." - "Apparently god wasn't happy with his swing." - ":-2:-3."

But more to the point, I think it's trying to signify the writers intent to insinuate that men are held in more esteem than women. I not only disagree but it's a divinely false suggestion

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:31 am

Zapata;1267061 wrote: This brings up a question I've had about this, from the Holy Bible:

"Genesis 6:1 And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born unto them.

2. That the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he is also flesh; and yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty menwhich were of old, men of renown."

Perhaps these "daughters of men" were descended from apes (or aliens) or from the "giants" mentioned.

So now you don't think the story of adam and eve is true and their sons were in to bestiality rather than adam and eve also had daughters and the sons were in to incest in a big way? It's really hard top say anything withouit sounding sarcastic-but donl;t take it thatway.

The creation myth is just that-it's a story. The theory of evolution is not a religious belief-you can look at the evidence and make up your own mind and no one will burn you at the stake for saying you think it wrong. If you don't want to believe it then fine don't.

The ideas about racial superiority pre-date Darwin and were justified by the use of the bible, interestingly enough because if a black man became a christian you had to free him because it was a sin to keep a christian as a slave. So you have to find a way to get around it so you find the relevant bits in the bible to make it OK again to enslave someone. I wouldn't blame Christianity for that any more than it is justifiable to blame darwin for the cynical use of the theory to come up with social darwinism.

Now thanks to DNA it is even more demonstrably the case that we are all Jock Tamson's Bairns.

posted by robert J

I bothered because the article attacks Darwin's credibility without any proof whatsoever, and is typical hearsay invented by religious groups.

I often think the religious groups think they are in church when they are on a discussion forum-they say something as if it was a litany and expect everybody to say Amen and agree with them and go away in shock when someone shouts cobblers instead.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:23 am

Robert J;1266997 wrote: Are you standing behind the article then?

the difference is I stand behind what I've written. The thread you mention is asking people what they think about a subject and offered them to present facts or thoughts as to why.

I bothered because the article attacks Darwin's credibility without any proof whatsoever, and is typical hearsay invented by religious groups.

My thread is manageable from the OP, this one isn't.

Following your logic then, anyone can as a third party post anything at all about anyone including you without any merit?

The article was not invented by a religious group. It's bloody Time Magazine!!

Yes, anyone can post anything that was written in Time magazine. The magazine itself is a PG-13 source.

I most certainly have not tried to say what part of the OP can be discussed and which part can't. I have tried to tell you to attack the subject not the poster. You were clearly attacking another member.

eta: I see you've left the thread. well done.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:19 pm

I always thought that the evolutionary system we are a part of is pretty intelligent design, myself.

I mean, we have these microscopic organisms that can program to any sort of combination to become cooperative and complimentary and grow and develop whole varieties of species to not only exist, but to thrive in all sorts of environments.

Life is self-replicating, self-designing, self-repairing,...

Life is just frickin fantastic in what it can do.

I read a while back that scientists are working on nanotechnology where the "nanobots" can build themselves and even learn and improve themselves.

We already have that in cellular design.

How cool is THAT?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:02 pm

LarsMac;1267531 wrote: I always thought that the evolutionary system we are a part of is pretty intelligent design, myself.

I mean, we have these microscopic organisms that can program to any sort of combination to become cooperative and complimentary and grow and develop whole varieties of species to not only exist, but to thrive in all sorts of environments.

Life is self-replicating, self-designing, self-repairing,...

Life is just frickin fantastic in what it can do.

I read a while back that scientists are working on nanotechnology where the "nanobots" can build themselves and even learn and improve themselves.

We already have that in cellular design.

How cool is THAT?

Interestingly enough if you flip the perspectives objectively it can be argued that it's horrible.

For instance, the suggestion that we as human beings are apart of the virus that plagues the universe. "Life is self-replicating, self-designing, self-repairing,...Life is just frickin fantastic in what it can do. " can quickly turn into "Life is self-replicating, self-designing, self-repairing,...Life is just frickin horrific in what it can do. ".

Thousands of years of slavery. Thousands of years of murder. Hundreds of years of pollution that will inevitably kill all life on Earth. Not very pleasant then is it?

We are the bacteria of the universe,..not the phenomenon of life?

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:40 pm

Although Darwin's theories can be linked to the Columbine killings and Eugenics etc, I think that is rather like blaming the Beatles for Manson's behaviour.

imo, the only Dark Legacy at work is human nature.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Nov 30, 2009 2:15 am

koan;1267632 wrote: Although Darwin's theories can be linked to the Columbine killings and Eugenics etc, I think that is rather like blaming the Beatles for Manson's behaviour.

imo, the only Dark Legacy at work is human nature.

Concepts like manifest destiny and the white man's burden are more easily linked to the influence of religion than to darwin. That where the concept of the chosen people comes from but the christian church can take the blame for anti semitism all on it's own. All darwin did was add another log to a fire already burning.

joey2000 · Post by **joey2000** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:15 am

Jazzy;1266725 wrote: how can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world? Wasn't his great breakthrough to show that humans, like all animals, share a common origin?

How are these things mutually exclusive?

I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. And they're right; we are. But it doesn't take a "religious person" or rocket scientist to see mankind is special (in good and bad ways, unfortunately). Language, self-awareness, technology, religion, philosophy...on and on...things which no other animal has easily prove we are incredibly unique.

I don't feel comfortable with such judgments being left to scientists.

Only a village idiot would feel comfortable leaving any such decisions to any specific group. But this is also a uniqueness and sad legacy of mankind: our technological advancements are far out-pacing our ability to handle them socially/morally/etc.

What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity?
No "practical" benefit, but so what? Anything which helps us ponder and understand ourselves still has great benefit.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:16 am

joey2000;1270336 wrote: Language, self-awareness, technology, religion, philosophy...on and on...things which no other animal has easily prove we are incredibly unique.

Whales speak, elephants cry, monkey's use tools, "religion" doesn't exist, and philosophy is nothing more than intelligence in addition to empathy. It means you cannot prove that we're the only animals that philosophize...

After having said that, the reason we get "religion" is because humans have invented themselves as being, individually, the most important life forms in the universe. It's arrogant and does nothing but bread contempt