Does race exist?

[kat180]

So we only covered a little Darwin in school (not that I remember much!) but I believe the theory of evolution is still accepted as generally correct (apart from the religious community)?

In doing research for my dissertation, I am just starting to look at whether there is any scientific evidence to support the idea of race. Darwinism has been used to support the idea of different races and racism. Now whether it does, or as simply been used twisted for this purpose I don't know.

Anyone have any thoughts on Darwinism supporting the concept of race?

Do you believe there is such a thing as race? In general conversation on these boards and in RL its a word that gets used a lot- which leads me to believe that the majority of us have been taught to believe there is such a thing as race, or if not specifically told that then assumed this because of the common use of the word.

Thoughts?

[Eilonwy]

No, of course not.

The principles of evolution were perverted by "scientific racism." But that's not the fault of the theory of evolution.

[frau]

there is no such thing as race, it was made up in the 1700's to explain physical differences.

eta,
did you know that there used to be like 7 white races? what happened to those?

[lody]

Darwinism only makes a cause for the "fittest" variations of a species surviving. I hardly believe we could call skin color (considering humans haven't needed camouflage in a while) a survival trait... but then again humans kind of break the standard laws of Darwinism, what with keeping alive people with illnesses that should kill them, for example. I really don't think trying to apply straight-forward Darwinism to anything to do with humans makes any sense. We just don't work that way anymore (for better or for worse?).

[OperaCurls]

Plenty of people in the "religious community" accept the theory of evolution, too.

[ursula]

Have you ever read The Mismeasure of Man? It's an excellent book by Stephen Jay Gould, who used to teach at Harvard (recently deceased). It's not overly academic--more of a popular book, even though I did read it in a college class. It's been about 15 years or so since I read it, so I can't recall it in detail, but it deals with what Eilonwy referred to: the perversion of theories of evolution to support the development of nineteenth-century racial science (particularly craniometry) that argued scientifically, using the study of skulls, for a continuum among the races. Of course, white people were at the top and black people were at the bottom. I remember there was also some stuff about class, about how some people thought the propensity for becoming a prostitute or thief could be discovered by studying faces and skulls.

Here's a link to it on your Amazon, in case you're interested:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mismeasure-M...7633263&sr=8-1

I just looked at the back cover and apparently this new edition (from 1996) addresses contemporary attempts to attribute differences in "intelligence" to racial differences, like the Bell Curve business.

[kat180]

Thought be interesting to hear some views on here. I find it fascinating that people still think in terms of race- generally, people just dont seem to realise that there is no such thing, its just such a commonly used word that its taken for granted as being real scientific fact.

Of course Im only really at the beginnings of my research so many things I dont know myself.

Also- I didnt mean to imply that all religious people dismiss the theory of evolution- just that anybody who does seems to be because of religious reasons.

[ninja dog]

The Mutter Museum in Philadelphia has an exhibit on craniometry, left over from a 19th century study on criminal types. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about it, other than the determination of the researchers to link behavior to biology (that and the fact that they included a female skull at a time when female propensity for criminality was still debated).

[juicyfruit]

Originally Posted by ursula

Have you ever read The Mismeasure of Man? It's an excellent book by Stephen Jay Gould, who used to teach at Harvard (recently deceased). It's not overly academic--more of a popular book, even though I did read it in a college class. It's been about 15 years or so since I read it, so I can't recall it in detail, but it deals with what Eilonwy referred to: the perversion of theories of evolution to support the development of nineteenth-century racial science (particularly craniometry) that argued scientifically, using the study of skulls, for a continuum among the races. Of course, white people were at the top and black people were at the bottom. I remember there was also some stuff about class, about how some people thought the propensity for becoming a prostitute or thief could be discovered by studying faces and skulls.

Here's a link to it on your Amazon, in case you're interested:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Mismeasure-M...7633263&sr=8-1

I just looked at the back cover and apparently this new edition (from 1996) addresses contemporary attempts to attribute differences in "intelligence" to racial differences, like the Bell Curve business.

I've read the new edition. Gould said a great deal trashing the bell curve nonsense.

[mandatoryfun]

It's interesting you bring this up because a bunch of religious whackos just started this campaign to discredit Darwin in U.S. universities and colleges. It's being spearheaded by Kirk Cameron...you can read about it here: http://www.people.com/people/article...307814,00.html

He and other creationists have created thousands of editions of Charles Darwin's landmark work explaining evolutionary theory, with a 50-page introduction that picks apart aspects of Darwin's work and try to link it to everything from Nazi eugenics to the scientist's alleged "disdain for women."

Blah.

Of course, it's silly for anyone to try and discredit the scientific merit of what Darwin wrote just because some people may have—by certain interpretations, anyway—perverted it. Even if I believe Darwinism supports racism, it still makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than Cameron's justification for creationism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sanplNTr6c

Creationists are nuts. You can still believe in God and believe in science, including evolution—why cling so blindly to the Bible?