Charles Darwin, Racist

Editor’s Note: This article is reprinted with permission from Doug Kutilek’s free newsletter “As I See It,” a monthly electronic magazine, and appears here with some editing. AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com.

Lastly, I could show fight [vigorously advocate] on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago, of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.
—Charles Darwin (Darwin, Francis. The Life of Charles Darwin. 1902. Ed. John Murray. London: Senate, 1995., p. 64).

The volume from which this quotation is taken is essentially an abridgment by the author (one of Darwin’s sons) of his own longer 2-volume work (which contained considerable autobiographical material by Charles Darwin). It is not a hostile, fault-finding attack on Darwin, or a “Mommy Dearest” exposé by an alienated child, but a strongly pro-Darwin account. Its casual revealing of Darwin’s inner thoughts and attitudes regarding the races of mankind is therefore most telling.

“Natural selection”—the death and genetic elimination and extermination of “inferior” individuals and races in the mad scramble for survival—is viewed by Darwin, the founder and proponent of this view, as a great good, not merely among fishes and ferns and ferrets, but among people. Naturally, and arrogantly, assuming the superiority of his own “Caucasian” race (and of course himself, especially), he views with mirth the absurdity of the fear the white Europeans had in the 15th century of being overwhelmed by the Muslim Turks, which he viewed as a decidedly inferior race of people. And notice, it was not merely white hegemony that Darwin gloried in, but victory in “the struggle for existence” (emphasis added).

(A similar Muslim scare occurred in the 8th century, when the Saracens from North Africa invaded Europe via Spain, but were stopped in their bloody campaign of “peaceful” subjugation via the sword by Charles Martel at the battle of Tours, France in 732. Today, European civilization, and that “superior” white European race, faces once again the very real possibility of being overwhelmed by “inferior” non-white races, especially the Muslim immigrants from northern Africa [true for France, Holland, and most of Western Europe], but also once again the Turks [in Germany] and sub-Saharan blacks as well as South Asians [Britain]. In reality, it wasn’t race, but civilization—one founded in broad terms on Biblical Christianity—that gave European civilization its “edge.” Virtually the whole of Europe has now and long since cast away any pretense of Christianity in contempt of the God of Scripture, embracing instead atheistic materialism—a.k.a. Darwinism. And once again European civilization faces the real possibility of extermination, this time from without—following two unprecedentedly massive wars in the 20th century that nearly destroyed Europe from within. “The wicked will return to Sheol, all the nations that forget God,” Psalm 9:17. But I digress.)

Darwin looked forward with eager anticipation “at no very distant date” when an “endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world” (emphasis added). It was not enough in his mind that the European powers through their colonial empires ruled over and dominated these inferior races, but it was his hope and anticipation that they would be actually eliminated—exterminated (can you say “genocide” or “holocaust”?) by the superior whites, and sooner rather than later. Darwinism is not merely in harmony with Arian supremacy, Nietzscheism, Nazism, eugenics, and genocide; it is their foundation and justification. Indeed, there are demonstrable philosophical and intellectual links between Darwin’s hypothesis of “natural selection” and “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life” (to quote the subtitle of The Origin of Species) with all of these evils, and more.

In another revealing moment, Darwin wrote about one species of ant enslaving another species: “I have seen a migration from one nest to another of the slave-makers, carrying their slaves (who are house, and not field n_____s) in their mouths!” (Darwin, p. 191; emphasis in original). Such was his condescending contempt for non-whites.

Darwin was a malignant racist and Darwinism is inherently racist. I wonder if all those non-Caucasian individuals now residing in England consider these things—or are even aware of them—when they spend their ten-pound notes, which sport a portrait of Darwin. And what do the tourists who view his grave in an honored place in Westminster Abbey think about these things? Likely nothing at all.

Of course, when his theory became applicable to his own life or his own family, Darwin was decidedly “inconsistent.” There is the issue of his own incredibly poor health, which plagued him for the last forty years of his life. Its exact origin is unclear; psycho-somatic causes were probably a substantial factor. His various and severe gastro-intestinal problems began when he began his preliminary speculations on evolution, and continued until he had largely ceased his evolutionary writings:

Darwin’s illness has been the subject of extensive speculation. Some of the symptoms—painful flatulence, vomiting, insomnia, palpitations—appeared in force as soon as he began his first transmutation notebook in 1837…. [A] careful analysis of the attacks in the context of his activities points to psychogenic origins. Throughout the next decades Darwin’s maladies waxed and waned. But during the last decade of his life, when he concentrated on botanical research and no long speculated about evolution, he experienced the best health since his years at Cambridge. (Bettyann Kevles. “Darwin.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 15th ed. 1994.)

It may be that Darwin had stress-inducing inner turmoil generated by battling mentally against what his own mind told him was the truth, and that he was fighting against the knowledge of God. It is notable that Darwin admitted that there was overwhelming evidence of design (today we would say “intelligent design”) in the so-called “natural world.” Once the Duke of Argyll confronted Darwin about this matter. Noting features of orchids and earthworms (which Darwin had made special study of), the Duke of Argyll went on,

I said that it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect of the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away” (Darwin, p. 64, note).

So Darwin, refusing to believe or acknowledge what his own observations often and overwhelmingly convinced him was true—that there was Divine design in nature—took refuge in his anti-supernatural speculations and presuppositions (having previously, by age thirty, rejected the possibility of Divine revelation or miracles, or the historical accuracy of Scripture; see Darwin, pp. 57, 58).

But one must further observe: so chronically ill a being (whether dog or cat or man) as Darwin was, must obviously be, from a Darwinian perspective, an “inferior” being. He must be unfit and unworthy of survival or procreation. In a letter written in 1852, Darwin expressed his fear that his own ill-health was hereditary: “How paramount the future is to the present when one is surrounded by children. My dread is hereditary ill-health. Even death is better for them” (Darwin, p. 161). So, had he the power to chose between his children alive but in a state of chronic illness, or dead, he would for them choose death. We here witness Darwinism giving birth to “euthanasia,” also bizarrely misnamed “mercy killing.”

But when one of his daughters, Anne, died at age 10, he was deeply grieved. Should he not rather have rejoiced that the omnipotent if cold hand of “natural selection” had eliminated one of the inferior members of the human species, even one of the superior Caucasian race, thereby improving the species and the race, helping drive mankind to higher and better and superior status in the present and future? By his own theory, the death of his daughter at 10, before she could reproduce, was first of all proof of her “unfitness” to live, and secondly a genuine benefit and blessing to the rest of mankind and all future generations. But of course the human heart is not designed to react with the sterile rationalism that consistent Darwinism demands.

Darwin also believed that men were more evolutionary advanced than women (making him a sexist as well as a racist; see the Encyclopedia Britannica article, p. 980).

The whole cult of Darwin, which praises him to the skies as the greatest scientific benefactor of mankind, is remarkably silent on his blatant Hitleresque racism and his chauvinistic sexism, to say nothing of his bad science and demonstrably false hypothesis. The motive for embracing Darwin and Darwinism is not one compelled by genuine science or a single-minded quest for truth. Upon reading Origin, Charles’ brother Erasmus wrote to him, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling” (Darwin, p. 215). In short, “the hypothesis is so good, I accept it regardless of whether it conforms to the facts!”

Rather, for many, likely most, Darwinian “natural selection” (versus Divine creation or intelligent design) is favored consciously or unconsciously because it provides a convenient means for eliminating God from the human equation: “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie” and “did not think it worthwhile to have God in their knowledge,” as the Apostle Paul describes it (Romans 1:25, 28). In rebellion against the God of the Bible and Jesus Christ as Lord of life and death, they say, “Let us tear off their chains, and free ourselves from their restraints,” (Psalm 2:3). Darwin and Darwinism are embraced, not because they are true, but because they are convenient means to an end. Twenty-first century man wishes to become the autonomous God that Satan promised in Eden. Darwinism is the easiest means to that self-destructive end.


Doug Kutilek is the editor of www.kjvonly.org, a website dedicated to exposing and refuting the many errors of KJVOism and has been researching and writing in the area of Bible texts and versions for more than 35 years. He has a B.A. in Bible from Baptist Bible College (Springfield, Mo.), an M.A. in Hebrew Bible from Hebrew Union College (Cincinnati; and completed all requirements for a Ph.D. except the dissertation); and a Th.M. in Bible exposition from Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, Minn.). His writings have appeared in numerous publications including The Biblical Evangelist, The Baptist Bible Tribune, The Baptist Preacher’s Journal, Frontline, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society and The Wichita Eagle. The father of four grown children and four granddaughters, he resides with his wife Naomi near Wichita, Kansas.

Discussion

[Aaron Blumer]

The syllogism of the article… if there is one, would be more like this:

1. Darwin inventedDarwinism

2. Darwin was a racist in direct relationship to his Darwinism

3. Champions of Darwinism should think twice about looking at this guy as their hero… and should view his ideas with more skepticism as well
Though I read it differently, I can see where you’re coming from if you read the article in that sense. Still, it’s the second premise that is not defended and that is so crucial in preventing the whole article from being a fallaciously ad hominem polemic. The article does not show that Darwin’s racism came out of his Darwinism.

The euthanasia argument is another example of ad hominem attack that is groundless because it is false. A false ad hominem attack is called slander. Slander is still slander even if the object is otherwise unsavory.

[ScottB]

Though I read it differently, I can see where you’re coming from if you read the article in that sense. Still, it’s the second premise that is not defended and that is so crucial in preventing the whole article from being a fallaciously ad hominem polemic. The article does not show that Darwin’s racism came out of his Darwinism.
Although I might be mistaken, I think you are reading that backwards. I read the article as saying Darwinism came out of racism, not the other way around. Aaron’s logic didn’t actually say it was one way or the other — it just said “in direct relationship to.”

Dave Barnhart

[dcbii] Although I might be mistaken, I think you are reading that backwards. I read the article as saying Darwinism came out of racism, not the other way around.
Either way the article doesn’t support its premise, so either way the article is fallaciously ad hominem in nature. If the article truly is arguing that Darwinism came out of racism, then there is a whole raft of further factual issues, as it is well-documented that Darwin’s idea for natural selection came from his natural observation, the social application of which he made later. However, I believe from this quote that the author is, in fact, arguing that racism comes out of Darwinism, not vice versa:
[Douglas K. Kutilek] “Darwinism is not merely in harmony with Arian supremacy, Nietzscheism, Nazism, eugenics, and genocide; it is their foundation and justification.”

I was interested in the note on Nazism, so I looked it up [all sources are Wikipedia].

A quick look shows that Darwin [1809-1882] would have been [roughly] a contemporary of Nietzche [1844-1900] , who is credited [and I use the term loosely] as one of the influences of Nazi thought and philosophy; Darwin probably wouldn’t have been able to read Nietzche, but I do think that his theory may have reinforced Nietzsche’s musings. I would be interested to see if there is any evidence that Nietzche read Darwin’s works. If so, it’s worth noting that Darwinian thought could actually be an influence in the National Socialist philosophy. From what Wikipedia says, I don’t know how anyone could argue that Darwinian theory could NOT have influenced Nazism. It is worth noting that one of Hitler’s goals was the elimination of Christianity in Germany. Wikipedia notes:
In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage, German Christian culture, and professed a belief in an Aryan Jesus Christ, a Jesus who fought against the Jews. In his speeches and publications Hitler spoke of his interpretation of Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, stating that “As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice”…His private statements, as reported by his intimates, are more mixed…In the political relations with the churches in Germany however, Hitler readily adopted a strategy “that suited his immediate political purposes”. Hitler had a general plan, even before the rise of the Nazis to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich. The leader of the Hitler Youth stated “the destruction of Christianity was explicitly recognized as a purpose of the National Socialist movement” from the start, but “considerations of expedience made it impossible” publicly to express this extreme position.
More to the point, Wikipedia notes the historical roots of Nazism thusly:
Ideological roots and variants

The ideological roots that became German National Socialism were based on numerous sources in European history, drawing especially from Romantic nineteenth century idealism, and from a biological reading of Friedrich Nietzsche’s thoughts on “breeding upwards” toward the goal of an Übermensch (“superhuman”). Hitler was an avid reader and received ideas that later influenced Nazism from traceable publications, such as those of the Germanenorden or the Thule society. He also adopted many populist ideas such as limiting profits, abolishing rents and generously increasing social benefits—but only for Germans.

The Nordic myth has been attributed to an inferiority complex. Phillip Wayne Powell claimed that the Nordic myth began to arise “in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, a powerful surge of German patriotism was stimulated by the disdain of Italians for German cultural inferiority and barbarism, which lead to a counterattempt by German humanists to laud German qualities.” M. W. Fodor claimed in The Nation in 1936, “No race has suffered so much from an inferiority complex as has the German. National Socialism was a kind of Coué method of converting the inferiority complex, at least temporarily, into a feeling of superiority”. Nazism as a doctrine is far from homogeneous, and can be divided into at least two sub-ideologies. During the 1920s and 1930s, there were two dominant Nazi factions; the followers of Otto Strasser and the followers of Adolf Hitler. The Strasserite faction eventually fell afoul of Hitler, when Otto Strasser was expelled from the party in 1930, and his attempt to create an oppositional left-block in the form of the Black Front failed. The remainder of the faction, which was to be found mainly in the ranks of the SA, was purged in the Night of the Long Knives, which included the murder of Gregor Strasser, Otto’s brother. Afterwards, the Hitlerite faction became dominant. In the post-World War II era, Strasserism has enjoyed something of a revival among many neo-Nazi groups.
That being said, having read this article several days ago and thinking about the philosophical ramifications of Darwinism, I don’t see how anyone could be a fully-committed evolutionist and not wind up as a bigoted, prejudiced person.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

[Jay C] From what Wikipedia says, I don’t know how anyone could argue that Darwinian theory could NOT have influenced Nazism.
Just to clarify (in case I muddied the waters with my last comment): I am not arguing that Darwinism didn’t play a role in Nazi ideology — it most certainly did. I am arguing that neither Nazism or racism are necessary consequences of Darwinism. Evolutionary theory was merely appropriated to defend those moral evils. As Aaron pointed out, it all rests on the implied premise, “Darwin was a racist in direct relationship to his Darwinism.” That is what the author left unproven, and that is what I have argued is false.
That being said, having read this article several days ago and thinking about the philosophical ramifications of Darwinism, I don’t see how anyone could be a fully-committed evolutionist and not wind up as a bigoted, prejudiced person.
How so? If, as modern biologists do, you see humanity as one cohesive species, then why would you necessarily be bigoted? You may justifiable argue that Darwinism leads to a harsh individualism that cares little for anybody but oneself and possibly one’s own offspring, but that’s not prejudice or bigotry as typically understood.

[ScottB] However, I believe from this quote that the author is, in fact, arguing that racism comes out of Darwinism, not vice versa:
[Douglas K. Kutilek] “Darwinism is not merely in harmony with Arian supremacy, Nietzscheism, Nazism, eugenics, and genocide; it is their foundation and justification.”
I think it’s obvious that racism existed before those movements, so maybe it’s just a vicious circle. However, your point is taken — certainly genocide was practiced long before Darwinism.

Still, even though the article may not *prove* the connection between Darwinism and racism, if Darwin’s views and what he wrote are accurately reported, I believe it would be hard to argue that there was absolutely no connection between them.

I would actually agree with you that a modern-day Darwinist would not necessarily have to be a *racist* per se, but if the traits of particular people groups are examined and evaluated by Darwinism, the inevitable conclusion would be that one group is more evolved, or more suited to survival than the other because of the combination of traits it possesses. While that idea may not be racism in and of itself, it would certainly be seen that way by some, and there are those who would use such conclusions to justify their racism.

Dave Barnhart

[dcbii] I would actually agree with you that a modern-day Darwinist would not necessarily have to be a *racist* per se, but if the traits of particular people groups are examined and evaluated by Darwinism, the inevitable conclusion would be that one group is more evolved, or more suited to survival than the other because of the combination of traits it possesses. While that idea may not be racism in and of itself, it would certainly be seen that way by some, and there are those who would use such conclusions to justify their racism.
That’s what I meant and was referring to about being racist, Scott, so I think you understand where I’m coming from now. Racist, now that you’ve pointed it out, was probably the wrong word to use.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

I would actually agree with you that a modern-day Darwinist would not necessarily have to be a *racist* per se, but if the traits of particular people groups are examined and evaluated by Darwinism, the inevitable conclusion would be that one group is more evolved, or more suited to survival than the other because of the combination of traits it possesses.
You make a valid point; however, that conclusion is not limited to Darwinism.* Isn’t it common sense that some people groups are more likely than others to survive? The Shakers died out as a social group because they believed in absolute celibacy. That’s an extreme case, but it proves the point — their beliefs were less suited to survival than the rest of mankind. The problem is taking this observation (whether part of the larger Darwinian view or not) and expanding it into an evaluative principle: that certain people groups actually have greater worth than others. Or even worse, into an ethical principle: that we ought to treat certain groups worse than others.

I’ll grant that racism may result from exporting Darwinism to moral philosophy in a certain way**, but it is not a necessary result of Darwinism as a scientific theory. It’s the same as some fringe groups who claim that Einstein’s theory of relativity leads to moral relativity. It doesn’t, as long as you keep it in its proper realm.

* I’m understanding your phrase “suited to survival” in the context of Darwinism, or as a biologist may say, “adapted for survival.”

** I clarify “in a certain way,” because you could also export Darwinism to moral philosophy to say that we need to stand up for the rest of our species to ensure its continued propagation. It all depends on what level you apply the natural selection filter, as I discussed at the end of my last post.

The wikipedia article is wrong about Darwinism’s roots in nineteenth Century idealism; that’s crock, although it went around for a long time among historians.

The historical links between Darwin, Nietzsche, and National Socialism, however, have been very well attested. For Nietzsche, see The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany 1890-1990 (Weimar and Now : German Cultural Criticism, No 2) , by Steven Aschheim. I note in passing I don’t think tnis means the National Socialists got Nietzsche right, or that it means we can dismiss Nietzsche, as I don’t believe either of those things.

For social Darwinism, see among others, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart.

That said, historians of science have now long discredited the idea that Darwin was viewed universally as incompatible with Christainity; in fact, many conservatives did not think so, but the finding of historians in this area have been ignored by both liberals and conservatives, partly because they don’t fit ideological agendas well. See, especially: The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870-1900, by James Moore, and Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter Between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought by David Livingstone, a fine historian of science.

[Joseph] The wikipedia article is wrong about Darwinism’s roots in nineteenth Century idealism; that’s crock, although it went around for a long time among historians.
Joseph, the part that was quoted was from an article on Nazism, not Darwinism.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jay C,

Good catch; nazism is what I meant. The claim that Nazism sems from idealism is crock - that’s what I meant to say, thanks.