August 9, 2005


The Left Doesn’t Like Darwin Either (Steve Sailer, August 07, 2005, V-Dare)

[S]omebody should ask liberal pundits if they believe in the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.

I bet not many would agree. Yet that's the subtitle to Darwin's The Origin of Species.

Paradoxically, while the Religious Right engages in attacks on Darwin's theory of what animals evolved from, the left and center clamps down upon Darwin's theory of what humans evolved to.

Nor do many liberal commentators know that much of Darwin's second most important book, The Descent of Man, consists of an evolutionary explanation of human racial differences.

In it, Darwin wrote:

"... the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other -- as in the texture of hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body, the capacity of the lungs, the form and capacity of the skull, and even the convolutions of the brain. But it would be an endless task to specify the numerous points of difference. The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatization and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotions, but partly in their intellectual faculties."

This means that Darwinian science is on a collision course with progressive egalitarians. Darwinism requires hereditary inequalities. What natural selection selects is genetic difference. In his famous The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote, "Variability is the necessary basis for the action of selection." The left fears true Darwinian science because the politically correct dogma of our factual equality cannot survive the relentlessly accumulating evidence of our genetic variability.

It's no coincidence that a white Christian male propounded the theory of his own genetic superiority at the height of the Victorian era.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 9, 2005 11:10 AM

Oh, good God. You mean that you've now discovered that Darwin was not a complete modern liberal ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY YEARS AGO?

SO I suppose you also agree that Lincoln was an irredemable racist?

Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at August 9, 2005 11:48 AM

Not only was Darwin a Nazi white supremacist, but he also liked soccer.

And threw like a girl.

Posted by: Brit at August 9, 2005 12:12 PM


Darwin too was redeemable, Darwinism isn't.

Posted by: oj at August 9, 2005 12:18 PM

Gertrude Himmelfarb was the among the first to notice what OJ wrote in the post:

"The theory of natural selection, it is said, could only have originated in England, because only laissez faire England provided the atomistic, egotistic mentality necessary to its conception. Only there could Darwin have blandly assumed that the basic unit was the individual, the basic instinct self interest, and the basic activity struggle. "

Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at August 9, 2005 1:06 PM


Which is why paradigms shift. The ambient reality changes and takes the "science" with it.

Posted by: oj at August 9, 2005 1:09 PM

I took the last quarter of the introductory course in political philosophy course one summer from a visiting professor who assigned Descent of Man. Otherwise, I am certain I could ahve gotten through college without ever having even heard of it. I would say it is the MOST important work by Darwin. It is certainly a tiny step from DOM to OJ's "Nazi-ism = Applied Darwinism."

Posted by: Dan at August 9, 2005 4:06 PM

Let us look the elephant squarely in the eye.

Let us assume for the purposes of this discussion that most human traits, including cortical effeciency, are at least partially hereditable. Add to the assumed fact, the undeniable tautologous reality that cultures vary in their adaptation to this or that ecological milieu, which milieu includes competition with bearers of other cultures.

So what? What do the assumed fact and and the established fact tell us about how justice requires us to deal with the individual who stands before us? The white man may still merit a place on the basketball team. The Aborigine may, by utmost effort, master modern language and mathematics and place his footprints on the moon.

We must avoid one error on 19th Century thougtht: the conflation of race and culture. Ebonics is not genetic, despite what the Oakland school board may have thought. We should also be very wary of anything coming from VDare, whose posts appear to be steeped in this error.

Posted by: Lou Gots at August 10, 2005 1:19 AM

Aye, and the conflation of viability with morality, which is where Orrin always goes wrong.

Darwin's bulldog had to invent the word amoral for a reason.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at August 10, 2005 11:26 PM


It's not an error within the confines of the theory of Darwinism--it's one of the ways you know the theory is crap.

Posted by: oj at August 11, 2005 10:28 AM