Monday, November 21, 2005
(6:48 AM) | Old - Doug Johnson:
Darwin, Race, Catholicism
The comments on John Emerson's post below include this exchange:Old: ... and, it should be added, that not only was Bryan's opponent Darrow a
Social Darwinist, but also a full-fledged and prominent member of the American
Eugenics Society (along with almost every other big name 'liberal' of the time
-exceptions included John 'Jack' Ryan, a Roman Catholic theologian with two or
three close friends on the Supreme Court).
Scott: Old,All those terms you threw out there need to be separated:
eugenics from Darwinism first and foremost. It is easily possible to advocate
eugenics and not believe in Darwinian evolution; it's even easier to be a
Darwinian and abhor both the mythical beast of Social Darwinism and eugenic
programs. Huxley, for one, believed people had a moral responsibility to efface
the connection between the brute fact of natural selection and human society
anytime anyone mentioned it.
Yes, it is logically possible to be for eugenics and not be a Darwinist or to be for Darwin and against eugenics. It's just that it wasn't the case historically. The Huxley counterexample is nice, but not the dominant way things went down. The history of the British eugenic movement is especially telling in this regard as two of the most prominent early leaders (chairs of the British eugenic society) were relatives of Darwin (cousin Galton and grandson Darwin). It just is the case that the Eugenic movement worldwide (international conferences, national societies, etc.) was dominated by Scientists of the darwinist persuasion.
Now I don't think that the heavily racist tonality of late 19th and early 20th century Darwinism is a reason for rejecting evolution altogether. I am not a dyed in the wool young earther or anything; I have serious problems with both sides in 'science' v. 'fundamentalists' on evolution. I applaud the fact that Science, in recent books like Guns, Germs and Steel, is finally facing up to and trying to manuever around the history of evolutionary racism. It isn't enough yet, however. The whole history of paleo-anthropology, in the starkest instance, is dominated by a racist assumption that black folks are closer to the apes. Agamben's bit in The Open on theory preceeding the discovery of 'the facts' in actual bones is telling in this regard.
On the other side, I don't for a moment think that the Genesis account is about actual origins. It has long been established in rigorous biblical studies that the Genesis creation account is a Hebrew counter-narrative, meant precisely to fly in the face of the Babylonian account which was racist, hierarchical and a critical underpinning for the violence of the Babylonian empire. That creationists after Bryan have been all too willing to succumb to nationalism, racism, and the claims of Empire makes it utterly ridiculous that they should claim to be faithful to the Genesis account of creation.
It is for reasons such as these that I have a slightly more sanguine view of evolution than the good Cardinal of Austria who recently clarified his highly influential Catholic position on evolution. And this even though I think that Schoenborn's position as stated either meets Jared's standards of scientific rationalism, or at least comes as close as any believer possibly could.
