Gairney Bridge

A blogger, perusing some of my older threads and wishing to defend evolution and evolutionists, has taken issue with a couple of my “Shock Quotes” from a few weeks ago. The charge is that the quotes were butchered and taken out of context (which, ironically, was part of the point of the original post). So, after a bit of deliberation (and research of his claims) on my part, I have decided to represent these two quotes (the second forthcoming), in context, and without ellipses. The point will be to see if this actually makes a difference (in terms of “shock value”).

First, a quote by Charles Darwin:

The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shewn by man’s attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can woman- whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive both of composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on Hereditary Genius, that if men are capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.

This is taken from The Descent of Man and can be accessed here. You can also read more of Darwin’s thoughts on the subject, along with some of his supporters, here.

Now, if I have misrepresented Darwin, then my apologies, but I do not really see how the previously excluded parts really make much of a difference. And apparently, I am not alone. For example, a Social Darwinist website (albeit claiming to be a modern one and critical of past SDs), after quoting this same passage from Darwin, comments:

A rigorous dualism between “society” and “nature” was maintained by early Social Darwinism, women and nonwhites being allocated to the category of “nature,” for example, and European men being allocated to “culture.” This kind of dichotomy is full of dangerous implications but can be overcome if evolution and biology are envisaged as bequeathing potentials and tendencies that can be realized in different ways by the kinds of society encountered.

In an article in the journal Integrative and Comparative Biology, the author quotes the same selection from Darwin (the same quote with the same ellipses as I posted on the earlier thread) under a heading entitled “Men are more intelligent than women” (which is the way he is interpreting Darwin), and writes:

The Darwin-Bateman paradigm can be treated as part of a family of related developments stemming from Darwin’s views regarding sex differences variability, developmental state, and intelligence. Although none of these ideas was originated by Darwin, surely his prominence helped the coalescence of a somewhat integrated view of sex differences. Although they may perhaps be traceable to Darwin’s writings, this says nothing conclusive about their utility. Sexist hypotheses need not necessarily be viable or inviable. They may be subjects of empirical inquiry. The origins should foster such inquiry given the possibility that these approaches emerged as a product of 19th-century sexism.

Finally, this article in the European Journal of Women’s Studies (which speaks very favorably and dogmatically of the theory of evolution by natural selection), states, “Darwin was prejudiced, however, in his view of women and female animals in general, as his theory of sexual selection makes clear.” The same article goes on to say, “Darwin’s view of females was quite narrow … [but] revolutionary at the time.”

Therefore, at least these three sources (none of which are Creationists in any sort of way to the best of my knowledge) seem quite comfortable quoting Darwin in the same manner as I did, as well as coming to a similar conclusion that I would (although, you will note, that I did not actually interpret the quote in the previous thread; I simply presented the quote and let the reader come to his/her conclusions). Obviously, some people found the quote (along with the others) quite revolting. But, as these citations above indicate, Darwin was simply a product of his Victorian/European time, and he was simply reflecting the sentiments of his society (which goes to the point in another post — all of us have presuppositions, and no one, not even respected scientists, are neutral in these observations; we all come to the table with assumptions, and are so prone to interpret the data to fit our view of the world). One historian has noted, “Darwinianism gave a naturalistic, scientific basis to the class and sexual divisions of Victorian society.” While this many not sit well with some, it is a fact that one must come to terms with instead of ignoring the origins of a theory that has had so much impact on western civilization.