Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

0ttr t1_ja82bx0 wrote

https://www.thelastarchive.com/season-2/episode-1-monkey-business

You should listen to this podcast...because it adds a very important twist. While I support the teaching of evolution over biblical creation in schools, it's a very important thing to note that AT THAT TIME eugenics and evolution were very tightly entwined, and Scopes taught from a textbook that included it. William Jennings Bryan alluded to this in his defense.

Here's a quote from another link discussing this: "John Scopes admitted to having taught lessons out of George William Hunter’s textbook “A Civic Biology.” If you’ve never read this book, it might shock you. Hunter divided mankind into five races, concluding that the highest race was “the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.” In a different section of the book, he discussed what should be done to people with inferior traits:

“If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.”

So you can see why religious and moral people might have objections to evolution being taught and where people interpreting the science (and some scientists themselves) had erred here... this kind of thinking, well, you know where it led. https://www.timesnews.net/news/education/the-forgotten-link-between-the-scopes-trial-and-eugenics/article_45390ee2-0448-11ed-96b9-3fd02a64a683.html

14

popsickle_in_one t1_ja8s28k wrote

Selective breeding was known about long before Darwin proposed his theory of Evolution.

Eugenics merely applies that knowledge to humans. You don't need to know a thing about evolution.

The Nazis you allude to actually rejected evolution as the origin of species.

Understanding evolution shows how eugenics (and indeed selective breeding) is actually bad for the species in question, and doesn't create a super race. (look at how many purebred dogs have genetic deficiencies compared to mongrels)

People could twist their racism to fit a narrative and claim that was evolution. Darwin himself was very much anti-racist though and his theory shows that there isn't a superior breed of humans.

4

0ttr t1_ja94jlm wrote

However, it was very popular at the time, and no doubt evolution reinforced it and was used as a justification for it, hence the presence of it in a high school biology text. Many, many highly educated people supported eugenic ideas all the way up to US Supreme Court justices. It was not just racism--it was any kind of character or physical flaw.
And of course, the understanding of evolution, in an era prior to understanding gene encoding, chromosomes, and DNA, was considerably less sophisticated than it is now, again, certainly down at the level of a high school text.

You are arguing about what we know now, and what we know in hindsight, and that's fine, but that's not what they "knew" then. Your statements literally contradict the text quoted out of the book used in the case.

Clearly that was not the only reason evolution was being objected to, but it was definitely a reason, and convoluting creationism with the teaching of Christian morality is certainly a mishmash of theology, but it is clashing with a mishmash of science and pseudoscience that was in a mainstream accepted high school biology text at the time.

2

popsickle_in_one t1_ja9d7u7 wrote

The book is wrong. Evolution from the start discredited eugenics or any notion that there were superior races. How could there be if all types of humans had been evolving for the same amount of time?

People supported eugenics because they were racist, not because the theory of evolution ever taught them it was a good idea. People would have manipulated the ideas to fit racism, but it wasn't the cause, and studying it, even then, would have led to the opposite conclusion that the racists were trying to make.

People already knew about selective breeding, selecting against deformities in people has been present since ancient times. Darwin did not introduce this concept.

Also, the idea that Christian morality stood against eugenics at the time was laughable, since the both the British Eugenics Education Society, and the American Eugenics Society counted top clergymen among their members, and modified their message to appeal to Christians.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4001825/

Meanwhile eugenics was being consistently denounced by biologists and anthropologists, and they were especially concerned with the unscientific ideals eugenicists were spouting in order to propagate their message (such as picking undesirable 'traits' that weren't even biological in nature ie committing crimes)

1

0ttr t1_ja9g1ix wrote

Well, of course the book is wrong, no one in 2023 is disputing that a book used by a teacher in the 1920s era is wrong!

Clergyman were indeed eugenicists. So were scientists. Bryan was a Christian who was not a eugenicist and made arguments based on those principles, just like some scientist made their arguments for and against. So to argue that science was not tainted by it is blatantly false. Henry F. Osborn was a eugenicist and president of the AMNH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Fairfield_Osborn. Charles B. Davenport, zoologist, eugenicist. Henry Crampton, president NYAS, major evolutionary biologist, eugenicist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Crampton

So I think you need to adjust your thinking. The Nazis drew upon American eugenics research because it was so "thorough".

1

Darkstar1988 t1_ja8nlsx wrote

I highly doubt this was the reason for that. The bible was used to justify slavery and also an instruktonbook on that matter after all, I think this podcast is trying to rewrite history like the Southern states in your country. And religious and moral.... you make me laugh.

1

SaiyanTheSuper-J t1_ja8ryuj wrote

Not all religious people are dickheads

3

Darkstar1988 t1_ja8sh06 wrote

True, but in my personal experience witch it is anecdotal ofcourse most are and I mean like 90%

−4

0ttr t1_ja92vxn wrote

Research shows that any group of people that identifies around a common ideology becomes more insular and exclusive over time. That includes religious groups, but atheists as well. It's a human trait. Only individual curiosity and humility overcomes that--again, proven by research.

0

Darkstar1988 t1_jaagyye wrote

again I accept that but personal experience differs so my emotional state is different. thas all

1

0ttr t1_ja92ed2 wrote

It was not *the* reason, but it was *a* reason. You can read Bryan's own writings and see it quite clearly. It's in the source notes for the podcast. His moral arguments were quite valid. And in this case, the science on eugenics was wrong.

The lesson to be learned here is: things are almost always more complicated than history makes them out to be, and not everyone was the moron and genius that they seemed to be.

3

Bursuc23 t1_ja8wsh9 wrote

yeah, but what did they lead with at the time?

1

0ttr t1_ja931el wrote

It's mixed into Bryan's arguments at the time and in his writings. He has a moral objection that clearly alludes to eugenics.

2