Showing posts with label gene. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gene. Show all posts

Response to 'Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust'

Someone sent me the web address of an article at the Answers In Genesis site by Jerry Bergman, titled, "Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust," and I composed a reply:

BERGMAN (author of "Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust" and the Answers in Genesis website): Hitler's government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel.

ED: Note the admission, "...especially the elaborations of Spencer and Haeckel." It's the "elaborations" of others, rightly or wrongly that most influenced Hitler, this becomes even clearer below, concerning various "Nazi scientists" listed below and their prejudicial modes of thinking that preceded their eugenics theories concerning "the Jews."


BERGMAN: The Nazis relied heavily upon the work of Hans F.K. Günther, professor of 'racial science' at the University of Jena

ED: Note the admission, "relied heavily upon the work of Hans F. K. Günther," whose "work" consisted of "proving" the "inferiority of the Jews." Why "the Jews" you ask? Because Günther and many other Germans "knew" that the "Jews" were inferior long before Günther ever did his first "racial science" experiment (sic). In fact, many Germans believed that "Jews" were inferior for CENTURIES, because the Bible and Martin Luther told them so. So really, what DOES the Holocaust come down to? Günther's "racial science," a Jew-hating pseudoscience, based firmly on centuries of Jew-baiting and Jew-hating under the Christian cross.


BERGMAN: Poliakov notes that many intellectuals in the early 1900s accepted telegony, the idea that 'bad blood' would contaminate a race line forever, or that 'bad blood drives out good' , just as bad money displaces good money. Only extermination would permanently eliminate inferior genetic lines, and thereby further evolution. . Darwin even compiled a long list of cases where he concluded bad blood polluted a whole gene line, causing it to bear impure progeny forever.

ED: This idea of "telegony" does not necessarily warrant "extermination" in the sense of killing people, just sterilization. I also wonder whether Darwin ever mentioned the words "bad blood" and spoke about it "polluting" a whole gene line. He probably did collect examples in which a pedigreed dog or pigeon was bred with a wild type and the children of that offspring no longer bore pedigreed offspring. But so what? Does that mean build ovens and kill Jews, homosexuals, Poles, and Gypsies? Darwin did invent a theory of inheritance that involved gemmules carried in the blood that carried physically inherited information, but it was disproven long ago. Nobody believes Darwin's theory of inheritance any more.


BERGMAN: Hitler believed that Blacks were "monstrosities halfway between man and ape"

ED: More of Günther's "racial science" at work? Bergman does not say. But the prejudiced idea of Black's being mere savages goes back BEFORE Darwin's day. The Europeans at that time looked down upon the Blacks in Africa and Indians in the Americas for not advancing technologically as fast as they had. The Europeans had guns and steel. The Blacks still had only spears. It proves nothing of course, except that races that develop technology tend to regard the less technologically advanced races with derision, and probably underestimate their capabilities. (Imagine how advanced beings in passing UFOs feel about everyone on our planet?) As for Blacks having a "mundane genetic character" that made them prone to being enslaved, see the "Biblical views" of the president of the Institute of Creation Research in America, found at the very end of this e-mail.


BERGMAN: Relatively few scientific studies exist which directly deal with Darwinism and Nazism

ED: Those wouldn't be "scientific" studies, those would be historical studies.


BERGMAN: . and many evolutionists avoid the subject because evolution is inescapably selectionist.

ED: The word "selectionist" by itself means nothing. Bergman is just straining like the devil to connect everything the involves "Hitlerian, Güntherian, genocidal" selection with Darwin's theory of "natural selection" - a theory that in the biological realm, even some creationists accede to, especially the ones who admit that microevolution occurs.


BERGMAN: One of the best reviews of Darwinism and Nazism documents clearly that Nazism felt confident that their programs of extermination was firmly based on evolution science.

ED: Just because someone is "confident" their beliefs are "based" on something does not mean it is. It merely tells us how "confident" that person was in their belief that it was. So believing one's views are "based on science" doesn't make it so. What was Nazi "racial science" really based on? Perhaps centuries of prejudiced racism? It was also based on "science" prior to the human genome project discovery that all human beings are, genomically-speaking, almost "identical twins" and that the notion of "races" is obsolete. But scientists knew that even BEFORE the human genome project which merely reinforced what they had already discovered via other types of experiments. Speaking of being "based on science," there are still Christian groups who espouse racism and who believe their views are "based on science, or at least on what they claimed was common sense," as did the Christian whites in South Africa, as did Christian slaveholders in the South of the U.S. (As I've pointed out, South Africa was a heavily Protestant Christian nation, that gave more money for missions per capita than even America, and that was during the time of their practice of apartheid, when it was also illegal to teach evolution in schools, nor did they allow the broadcast of any of Sagan's COSMOS programs that dealt with evolution. So, creationism and Christianity in South Africa went hand in hand with apartheid.) And speaking of the idea of "things being firmly based upon" other things, what about all the crazy ideas that one Christian group or another affirms are "firmly based" on the 'Bible," and which another Christian group rejects, though both claim "the Bible" is the "basis" for all their beliefs? And the fact that such disputes have ended in excommunications, riots, murders and wars? Based on the Bible, Early American Puritans were convinced that if the native Americans would not convert, then they should be destroyed like the Canaanites, without mercy, man, woman and child. Need some quotations on that? I've got references. Might make a nice article at the Answers in Genesis site, "Christianity, the Bible, and the Native American Holocaust."


BERGMAN: An assessment by Youngson concluded that the application of Darwinism to society, called eugenics, produced one of the most tragic scientific blunders of all time: "The culmination of this darker side of eugenics was, of course, Adolf Hitler's attempt to produce a 'master race' by encouraging mating between pure 'Aryans' and by the murder of six million people whom he claimed to have inferior genes. It is hardly fair to Galton to blame him for the Holocaust or even for his failure to anticipate the consequences of his advocacy of the matter. But he was certainly the principal architect of eugenics, and Hitler was certainly obsessed with the idea. So, in terms of its consequences, this must qualify as one of the greatest scientific blunders of all time."

ED: Taken from a book titled Scientific Blunders; A Brief History of How Wrong Scientists Can Sometimes Be. No doubt the authors of a book about "science's" greatest blunders are going to play up the "science" aspect behind such blunders and ignore the centuries of religious intolerance and cultural egotism that preceded such blunders. Not to mention the charismatic ideologue, Hitler, and his ideological mass movement that carried out the exterminations proposed by their "leader." I'd say; the Holocaust was a typical case of an alpha male leading his pack of gorillas. And that perhaps a lot of Christians today are being "primed" by their ideology which teaches them to bow down to a holy book or leader, to bow down to the next charismatic leader who comes along and is able to feign both "Christianity" and "science" in the name of some obviously prejudicially based plan which he assures us will "save the world," and thereby wreck it.

Speaking of pseudoscience that is not based on Darwinism, but on a prominent creationist's reading of the Bible check out the following:

HENRY MORRIS OF THE INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH, AND THE QUESTION OF "genetic CHARACTER."

From Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings, Creation-Life Publishes, San Diego, 1976, I quote this passage: "Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites." There is no scientific evidence for any "genetic character" basis for a disposition to "the mundane" (nor for a "genetic character" for a disposition to "philosophy or religion") in certain peoples, and no biblical basis for assuming that a general distinction of this kind is genetic either. The notion of a genetic disposition to the mundane in certain populations is an utter fabrication. But it suits Morris' view of the Biblically prophetic curse of one of Noah's three sons, which he sees as thereby being fulfilled because he has interpreted it as being fulfilled, via his fallacy of a "genetic character toward the mundane" for an entire group of people.

ENDNOTE: Morris is careful to avoid the word "race," but instead speaks of "genetic character": "Note that these three streams of nations are not three 'races.' Though some have thought of the Semites, Japhethites, and Hamites as three races (say, the dusky, the white, and the black races or the Mongoloid, Caucasian, and Negroid), this is not what the Bible teaches, nor is it what modern anthropology and human genetics teach. There are dusky and black people found among all three groups of nations. The Bible does not use the word 'race' nor does it acknowledge such a concept. The modern concept of 'race' is based on evolutionary thinking. To the evolutionist, a race is a subspecies in the process of evolving into a new species, and this idea is the basis of modern racism . "

This passage by Morris again demonstrates no knowledge of modern anthropology and genetics which are integral to modern evolution, and which teach that the notion of "race" has indeed become vacuous. But not because the Bible told them so.

Darwin and Hitler, on The Topics of Evolutionary Ethics

Letter to the Author of the Book, Darwin and Hitler, With Added Discussion on The Topics of Evolutionary Ethics, Is Living for Pleasure All There Is?, Dangers of Religion, Fear of Atheism/Atheists, Fear of Evolution, and, Christian Men/Women of Science Who Are Pro-Evolution
by Edward T. Babinski

Letter to Dr. Richard Weikart, member of the Intelligent Design movement's "Discovery Institute," and author of the book, Darwin and Hitler:

Dear Dr. Weikart,

In Darwin and Hitler you agreed that German Darwinists before Hitler's day ought not be described as "proto-Nazis" so you focused on the ways in which their views overlapped and presaged those of the latter Nazi ideology. However as the following recent books demonstrate, a similar point could also be made concerning the Christians in Germany before Hitler and during Hitler's reign, and the ways in which their prejudices overlapped with that of Nazi ideology:

Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocaust
Edited by Robert P. Ericksen & Susannah Heschel
(Augsburg Fortress)

The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945
Richard Steigmann-Gall
(Cambridge University Press)

A summation of the above two works at "about.com" states, "German Christians supported the Nazis because they believed that Adolf Hitler was a gift to the German people from God. German Christianity was a divinely sanctioned religious movement which combined Christian doctrine and German character in a unique and desirable manner." Prior to World War II even the Southern Baptists here in my conservative little city of Greenville S.C. wrote glowingly of Hitler's character, accomplishments and his faith, as published in the local Baptist Courier.

Besides the two new books, a recently published biography of the present Pope mentions the interplay between the Catholic church and Nazism:

Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger
John L. Allen Jr.
(Continuum)
SELECTIONS: Many ordinary Catholics objected to attacks on their church, but there was simply no opposition to Nazism tout ensemble. ... In fact, there were key points at which Nazi and Catholic attitudes intersected and created a basis for mutual support. Both groups hated the Weimar Republic. The Nazis opposed Weimar because it was allegedly too Jewish and led by the "November Criminals" who sold out the country after the First World War; Catholics objected to it because it smacked of liberalism, sexual degeneracy, and an irreligious spirit. Cardinal Faulhaber, for example, gave a speech in May 1933 in which he expressed thanks for the Volksgemeinschaft, or spirit of community, which Hitler had fostered, and rejected "liberal individualism." Moreover, Catholics shared with Nazis an instinctive fear of the Bolsheviks. Finally, there was a form of anti-Jewish sentiment that was openly accepted among Catholics, based in part on the theological argument that the Jews sinned by rejecting Christ and in part on the historical fact that many Jews had played leading roles in the Kulturkampf. As early as 1925, a Franciscan priest named Erhard Schuland wrote a book called "Katholizismus und Vaterland" (Catholicism and Fatherland) that called on Germans to fight "the destructive influence of the Jews in religion, morality, literature and art, and political and social life." Schuland expressed what was very much the consensus in German Catholicism of the day... Archbishop Konrad Gröber of Freiburg was known as the "Brown Bishop" because he was such an enthusiastic supporter of the Nazis. In 1933, he became a "sponsoring member" of the SS. After the war, however, he claimed to have been such an opponent of the Nazis that they had planned to crucify him on the door for the Freiburg Cathedral. Bishop Wilhlem Berning of Osnabrück sat with the Deutsche Christen Reichsbishop in the Prussian State Council from 1933 to 1945, a clear signal of support for the Nazi regime. Cardinal Bertram also had some affinity for the Nazis. In 1933, for example, he refused to intervene on behalf of Jewish merchants who were the targets of Nazi boycotts, saying that they were a group "which has no very close bond with the church." Bishop Buchberger of Regensburg called Nazi racism directed at Jews "justified self-defense" in the face of "overly powerful Jewish capital." Bishop Hilfrich of Limburg said that the true Christian religion "made its way not from the Jews but in spite of them."... After April 7, 1933, civil servants in Germany were required to prove that they were not Jews. Because births had been registered by the state only since 1874, the church was called upon to provide many records. The Catholic church cooperated right up to the end of the war. Likewise, after the 1935 Nüremberg laws that forbade marriage between Aryans and non-Aryans, most Catholic priests did not perform such ceremonies, even though the number of Jewish conversions to Catholicism was accelerating because of the persecution.

Related statements of interest from two Popes:

Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846): From the polluted fountain of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous doctrine, or rather, raving, which claims and defends liberty of conscience for everyone. From this comes, in a word, the worst plague of all, namely, unrestrained liberty of opinion and freedom of speech…It is in no way lawful to demand, to defend, or to grant unconditional freedom of thought, or speech, of writing, or of religion, as if they were so many rights that nature has given man.

Pope Pius XI (1922-1939): Benito Mussolini is…a gift of Providence, a man free from the prejudices of the politicians of the liberal school.

ALDOUS HUXLEY'S CONCLUSION

Aldous Huxley pointed out that advocating either a dogmatically harsh "philosophy of meaninglessness" OR an equally dogmatic and harsh "philosophy of meaning" has led men (for men, not women, are primarily the ones who make such things happen) to imprison, torture, murder, and/or wage war against others for either self pleasure AND/OR to please their God:

"No philosophy is completely disinterested. The pure love of truth is always mingle to some extent with the need, consciously or unconsciously felt by even the noblest and the most intelligent philosophers, to justify a given form of personal or social behavior, to rationalize the traditional prejudices of a given class or community. The philosopher who finds meaning in the world is concerned, not only to elucidate that meaning, but also to prove that is it most clearly expressed in some established religion, some accepted code of morals. <...> The desire to justify a particular form of political organization and, in some cases, of a personal will to power has played an equally large part in the formulation of philosophies postulating the existence of meaning in the world. Christian philosophers have found no difficulty in justifying imperialism, war, the capitalistic system, the use of torture, the censorship of the press, and ecclesiastical tyrannies of every sort from the tyranny of Rome to the tyrannies of [Calvin's] Geneva and [Puritan] New England. In all cases they have shown that the meaning of the world was such as to be compatibel with, or actually most completely expressed by, the iniquities I have mentioned above--iniquities which happened, of course, to serve the personal or sectarian interests of the philosophiers concerned. In due course, these arose philosophers who denied not only the right of Christian special pleaders to justify iniquity by an appeal to the meaning of the world, but even their right to find any such meaning whatsoever. In the circumstances, the fact was not surprising. One unscrupulous distortion of the truth tends to beget other and opposite distortions. Passions may be satisfied in the process; but the disinterested love of knowledge suffers eclipse."

Besides Huxley's wise observation, others including Eric Hoffer (author of The True Believer), and Heinz Pagels (author of The Dreams of Reason), have pointed out that the "fundamentalist mindset" is what is most common to outbreaks of religious, philosophical and political fanaticism:

"Characteristic of all fundamentalism is that it has found absolute certainty--the certainty of class warfare, the certainty of science, or the literal certainty of the Bible--a certainty of the person who has finally found a solid rock to stand upon which, unlike other rocks, is 'solid all the way down.' Fundamentalism, however, is a terminal form of human consciousness in which development is stopped, eliminating the uncertainty and risk that real growth entails." (Heinz Pagels, The Dreams of Reason)

This recalls Mark Twain's gentle poke: "We have infinite trouble in solving man-made mysteries; it is only when we set out to discover the secret of God that our difficulties disappear."

"Another characteristic, not of fundamentalism, but of fundamentalists is their intellectual modesty, their almost saintly humility. Nietzsche said once that we are all greater artists than we realize, but fundamentalists are too timid to think of themselves as great artists. They take no credit for what they have invented; they assume they have no part in the creation and maintenance of the Idols they worship. Like the paranoid-very much like the paranoid, in fact -they devise baroque and ingenious Systems, and define them as "Given." They then carefully edit all impressions to conform to the System. There is no vanity, no vanity at all, in people who are so intensely creative and so unwilling to recognize their own cleverness." (Robert Anton Wilson, The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science)

Speaking of the class of fundamentalism known as "Protestant Christian fundamentalist/inerrantist," one such person, Gleason Archer, created a 480-page Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties in which he ingeniously attempted to explain away a host of "apparent" contradictions found in the Bible. ("Apparent" contradictions are the worst kind, because they are clearly apparent, and no explanation to try and explain them away is as inerrant as the text whose innerrancy one is attempting to defend.) Archer's single volume "encyclopedia" however, is far too short. What he needs to do is produce an enormous set of encyclopedias dealing with "Bible difficulties," along with a yearly supplemental volume to explain away the latest problems raised by textual and archeological research. A similar unwillingness to recognize their own cleverness was also apparent in the Plymouth Brethren (nineteenth-century Protestant fundamentalists who insisted the Bible was literally true.) One person raised in that milieu, recalls:

"They devised an elaborate system of mental watertight compartments. The contradictions of Old and New Testaments were solved by a Doctrine that what was sauce for the Jewish 'Dispensation' was not necessarily sauce for the Christian "Dispensation." Cleverer than Luther, they made possible the Epistle of James by a series of sophisms which really deserve to be exposed as masterpieces of human self-deception. My space forbids. So, despite all the simplicity of the original logical position [i.e., that the 'Word of God' must be without error or contradiction], they were found shifting as best they might from compromise to compromise. But this they never saw themselves; and so far did they take their principle that my father would refuse to buy railway shares because railways were not mentioned in the Bible! Of course the practice of finding a text for everything means ultimately 'I will do as I like,' and I suspect my father's heroics only meant that he thought a slump was coming."

One corollary is that if a Protestant fundamentalist searches diligently for something in the Bible they can usually find it there. (It's just this uncanny "gift" they have which they take no credit for, and do not dare suppose has anything to do with their individual level of mental agility and creativity.) In fact, if Crowley's father had just searched a little more, and with a bit more faith (and creativity) he COULD have found railways mentioned in the Bible. Chaplain Tresham Dames Gregg did, and delivered a noteworthy sermon on the subject that was published as a booklet in 1863, The Steam Locomotive as Revealed in the Bible. A Lecture Delivered to Young Men in Sheffield. Rev. Gregg's sermon is a little gem of fundamentalist ingenuity and creativity in which he demonstrates that God gave the prophet Ezekiel a vision of a steam locomotive. (Ezek. 1:4-25)

A fundamentalist not only believes that "with God, all things are possible," but, "with the Bible, all interpretations and invented explanations for a passage's meaning are possible" (except, of course, any that disagree with his church's doctrine, or imply the existence of errors or contradictions).

So fundamentalists (I am using Protestant fundamentalists/inerrantists as my primary example since I am most familiar with them) display at least two major characteristics:

(1) absolute certainty,

and,

(2) an unwillingness to recognize all the cleverness employed in keeping their "absolute certainty" afloat.

There is also a third characteristic, namely,

(3) grabbing the oars of the "D.S.S. Absolute Certainty" and using them to beat the heads of landlubbers who refuse repeated invitations to join the crew.

As A. E. Van Vogt observed in his pamphlet, Report on the Violent Male, and Colin Wilson observed in his book The Criminal History of Mankind:

"The Violent Male-and almost all violence is committed by males-seems to be a man who literally cannot ever, admit he might be wrong. He knows he is right... His ego definition, as it were, demands that he is always Right, nearly everybody else is always Wrong."

Wilson emphasizes that this model describes not only many, many infamous criminals, but quite a few of the more infamous statesmen and churchmen of history, who were not called criminals only because they were powerful enough to define what was "crime" in their society.

Cheers,

Edward T. Babinski (former fundamentalist Christian)

P.S., I was reading the chapter dealing with "Social Darwinism" in Michael Ruse's recent work, The Creation Evolution Debate, and wondered what you thought of his opinion of the history and philosophical implications (or rather non-implications) of Social Darwinism vis a vis your own? Have you two been in contact? If so, I'd like to know what you both have been talking about.

Have you responded to the review of your book, and the accompanying comments and questions found here?

Have you seen the following online article?
"Of Darwinism and Social Darwinism"
Robert B. Reich
Published on Tuesday, November 29, 2005

My review of your book:
Darwin to Hitler: Weikart, the Discovery Institute, and History
by Edward T. Babinski


THE "RELATED LINKS" SECTION BELOW IS FOLLOWED BY QUOTATIONS FROM SCHOLARS ON THE FOLLOWING TOPICS:
"EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS"
"IS LIVING FOR PLEASURE ALL THERE IS?"
"DANGERS OF RELIGION"
"FEAR OF ATHEISTS, ATHEISM"
"FEAR OF EVOLUTION"
"CHRISTIAN MEN/WOMEN OF SCIENCE WHO ARE PRO-EVOLUTION"


Related Links:

Racism and Creationist Dogma (Answers in Genesis's racist article)

Jan. 8, 2006 response to Answers in Genesis and their racist article


Christianism & Christian Nationalism
Christianism & Christian Nationalism
Christianity in the Confederate South
Christian Identity

Christian Reconstructionism & Dominion Theology
Dominionism & Dominion Theology
Christian Reconstructionism
Commonalities: Christian Reconstructionism & the Christian Right

Religious Privilege & Christian Privilege
What is Christian Privilege?
Hidden Christian Privileges in American Society
Christian Supremacy & the Dhimmitude of Non-Christians

Related Articles
Adolf Hitler & Christian Nationalism: Nazis' P...
Book Review - Betrayal: German Churches and the Holocau...
Book Review - Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movem...
Weren't the Nazis Pagans? The Holy Reich: Nazi Con...
Book Review - The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Chris...

LINKS TO ALL OF THE ARTICLES


Martin Luther--Selections from his notorious German work, "The Jews and Their Lies" (A book that Hitler used to show off at his rallies)

Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor


EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS

Review of two books on Evolutionary Ethics by Richard Weikart


MORE ON EVOLUTIONARY ETHICS

QUOTATION from philosopher Mary Midgley, "Wickedness: An Open Debate," The Philosopher's Magazine, No. 14, Spring 2001:

Darwin proposed that creatures like us who, by their nature, are riven by strong emotional conflicts, and who have also the intelligence to be aware of those conflicts, absolutely need to develop a morality because they need a priority system by which to resolve them. The need for morality is a corollary of conflicts plus intellect:

"Man, from the activity of his mental faculties, cannot avoid reflection… Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well-developed, or anything like as well-developed as in man."(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man)

That, Darwin said, is why we have within us the rudiments of such a priority system and why we have also an intense need to develop those rudiments. We try to shape our moralities in accordance with our deepest wishes so that we can in some degree harmonize our muddled and conflict-ridden emotional constitution, thus finding ourselves a way of life that suits it so far as is possible.

These systems are, therefore, something far deeper than mere social contracts made for convenience. They are not optional. They are a profound attempt--though of course usually an unsuccessful one--to shape our conflict-ridden life in a way that gives priority to the things that we care about most.

If this is right, then we are creatures whose evolved nature absolutely requires that we develop a morality. We need it in order to find our way in the world. The idea that we could live without any distinction between right and wrong is as strange as the idea that we--being creatures subject to gravitation--could live without any idea of up and down. That at least is Darwin's idea and it seems to me to be one that deserves attention.


QUOTATION from primatologist Frans De Waal, Peacemaking Among Primates

Forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of Judeo-Christianity. It did not originate in the minds of people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or a religion. The fact that monkeys, apes, and humans all engage in reconciliation behavior (stretching out a hand, smiling, kissing, embracing, and so on) means that it is probably over thirty million years old, preceding the evolutionary divergence of these primates...Reconciliation behavior [is] a shared heritage of the primate order…


QUOTATION from Albert Einstein

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.


IS LIVING FOR PLEASURE ALL THERE IS?

Human beings experience pleasures of many different kinds, including the grand pleasure of accomplishing great and difficult things over one's lifetime, things that aid, teach, or draw applause from many of our fellow beings, especially accomplishments in fields as varied as athletics, science and music.

Therefore, "pleasure" is not just about being fed wine and dried figs while concubines fan you. Both Eastern and Hellenistic philosophies and religions know the different between things that are truly pleasing and pleasurable in deeply fulfilling ways, compared with mere indolence.

Take these quotations from the Buddhist collection of wise verses, known as The Dhammapada (new trans. by Glenn Wallis):

Living with an eye to pleasure,
unrestrained in the sense faculties,
immoderate in eating, indolent, and idle--
Mara overcomes such a person,
as the wind overcomes a weak tree.

Living without an eye to pleasure,
well restrained in the sense faculties,
moderate in eating, faithful, and energetic,
Mara does not overcome such a person,
as the wind, a rocky hill. (7-8)

The craving of a person who lives carelessly
grows like a creeping vine.
He plunges from existence to existence,
like a monkey seeking fruit in the forest. (334)

Not through a torrent of money
nor in sensual enjoyment
can satisfaction be found. (186)

Speaking of Western philosophers, Evangelical Christian scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, PRAISES ancient Greek and Roman moral philosophy in his college course (available from The Teaching Company), "Practical Philosophy: The Greco-Roman Moralists." The course is billed thusly: "Imagine a course that teaches you not only how to think like the great philosophers, but how to live. Greeks and Romans of the early imperial period are often overlooked in the annals of philosophical study, but provided down-to-earth advice on how to live a solid, happy life." Harry McCall listened to Johnson's tapes and said, "I would challenge any fundamentalist to listen to this course, but I'm sure they would say 'It's a tool of the Devil!'"

Which also reminds me of something that Dr. Albert Schweitzer (the liberal Christian theologian who focused on "reverence for life," and who worked as a medical missionary in Africa for decades) pointed out: "For centuries Christianity treasured the great commandment of love and mercy as traditional truth without recognizing it as a reason for opposing slavery, witch burning and all the other ancient and medieval forms of inhumanity. It was only when Christianity experienced the influence of the thinking of the Age of Enlightenment that it was stirred into entering the struggle for humanity. The remembrance of this ought to preserve it forever from assuming any air of superiority in comparison with thought." Also in the same book, Schweitzer cautioned against "the crooked and fragile thinking of Christian apologetics." [Albert Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought: An Autobiography (New York: The New American Library, 1963)]

And, getting back to Hellenistic philosophy's down-to-earth advice, consider this:

May I be no man's enemy, and may I be the friend of that which is eternal and abides.
May I never devise evil against any man; if any devise evil against me, may I escape without the need of hurting him.
May I love, seek, and attain only that which is good.
May I wish for all men's happiness and envy none.
When I have done or said what is wrong, may I never wait for the rebuke of others, but always rebuke myself until I make amends.
May I win no victory that harms either me or my opponent.
May I reconcile friends who are wroth with one another.
May I, to the extent of my power, give all needful help to all who are in want.
May I never fail a friend in danger.
May I respect myself.
May I always keep tame that which rages within me.
May I never discuss who is wicked and what wicked things he has done, but know good men and follow in their footsteps.

The Prayer of Eusebius, written by a 1st-century pagan, as quoted in Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Religion. (Incorrectly attributed on the web to a 3rd-century Christian also named "Eusebius," but this was a 1st-century pagan philosopher's prayer. See Professor Murray's book.)


I will be as careful for you as I should be for myself in the same need.

Calypso, to Odysseus, in Homer, The Odyssey, Book 5, verses 184-91. (Roughly late 8th century BCE.)


As for being able to survive without explicit faith in God, nor with explicit theological ideas about the unseen, the afterlife, it's obvious that today there are whole nations with low percentages of believers in God, yet they are not presently doing horrendously badly. There's Japan (50% of whom don't even believe in a higher Spirit), and nations of Europe, especially northern Europe and the Czech Republic, to China (whose crime rate is still the lowest in the world I think--because their legal system stresses rehabilitation and pressure to reform placed on the offender by his whole family, and because the state assigns you a job after prison) whose economy is rising swiftly. Neither did polytheistic nations fare horribly badly in antiquity, such as the enormous and long lasting empires of Egypt, Babylon and Rome, the latter of which featured Hellenistic literature, sculpture, plays, philosophy, architecture, endless roads, as well as giving us early scientists, city planners, republican-based democracy, advanced trade and advanced soldiering (for its day), as well as 500 years of peace, the Pax Romana. Even Hinduism is with us still, a religion of vast inclusiveness and many paths to God.

Since I mentioned Buddhism, above, may I add that as a philosophy it doesn't ask how things came to be, and doesn't stress what one must believe about God or the gods. In case you haven't read much Buddhism, I highly endorse a book by Alan Watts (a former Anglican priest) titled simply, Buddhism. Also see Watts' book on another eastern philosophy with some traits in common with Buddhism, namely, Tao: The Watercourse Way. Conrad Hyers has a wonderful little book titled, Once-Born, Twice-Born Zen. And one of the Jesus Seminar fellows has produced a series of books that lines up sayings of Jesus beside sayings from Buddhism, and another book that lines up Jesus sayings with sayings from Taoism. Some of the parallels are quite interesting. There's also a thin book titled, Oneness, and another titled, One Heart, that features the most enlightening sayings from all the world's major religions.

A few more of my favorite sayings from the Dhammapada:

In this world hostilities are never appeased by hostility.
But by the absence of hostility are they appeased. (5)

All tremble before violence.
All fear death.
Having done the same yourself,
you should neither harm, nor kill. (129)

"They berated me! They hurt me!
They beat me! They deprived me!"
For those who hold such grudges,
hostility is not appeased.

"They berated me! They hurt me!
They beat me! They deprived me!"
For those who forgo such grudges,
hostility ceases.

Do not speak harshly to anyone.
Those to whom you speak might respond to you.
Angry talk really is painful.
The result might crash down on you. (133)

Win over an angry person with poise.
Win over a mean person with kindness.
Win over a greedy person with generosity,
and one who speaks falsely with honesty. (223)

There was not, nor will there be,
and now at present no person is found
who is wholly praised or wholly faulted.

As an elephant in battle bears the arrow
shot from a bow,
I will endure insult;
for many people have poor self-control. (320)

There was not, nor will there be,
and now at present no person is found
who is wholly praised or wholly faulted. (228)

Better than a thousand statements
composed of meaningless words
is a single meaningful word which,
having been heard, brings peace. (100)

Month after month one might offer a thousand sacrifices for a hundred years.
And another might, for an instant only, honor a person who cultivates himself.
Better is that honoring than the one which was offered for a hundred years. (106)


A few more ancient sayings, this one's really old:

Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.

Akkadian Councils of Wisdom (from the ancient Babylonian civilization that existed two millennia before Jesus was born) in Pritchard's Ancient Near Eastern Texts


Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighbor's gain as your own and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others.

Taoist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)


That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.

Islamic holy teaching (Sukhanan-i-Muhammad, 63)


People were Christian before Christ ever existed. People were humanistic before humanism was ever organized.
People were loving before LSD was ever discovered.

Timothy Leary, as quoted by Paul Krassner, "The Cynic Route from Crazy SANE to Loving Haight," The Realist, 1967


DANGERS OF RELIGION

QUOTATION from Keith Ward (himself pro-religion) in The Case for Religion:

[E]ven the great monastic communities of western Europe, such as Cluny Abbey, founded on renunciation of the world and denial of the flesh, quickly became owners of vast estates and wielders of enormous political power. They no longer protested against the world. They were the world, in all its pageantry and power, and they validated the dream of empire, which they consecrated as Crusades to destroy the infidel. That is why people should not look to religion for salvation or for a solution to the ills of the world. Failure to see the possibilities for corruption and destruction in religion is a failure of spiritual perception of the first order. Few people fail to see the destructive possibilities of other people's religions, but they can be remarkably blind to their own.


Theology is the science of Dominion.

- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -


One very small modern day example of domination-seeking fundamentalist Christians.


QUOTATION from Blaise Pascal, Pensees, (1670)

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.


QUOTATION from G. K. Chesterton in the Daily News, as quoted by Robert Blatchford, God and My Neighbor

Christianity has committed crimes so monstrous that the sun might sicken at them in heaven.


QUOTATION from C. S. Lewis in a letter to Bede Griffiths, dated Dec. 20, 1961, not long before Lewis' death, The Letters of C. S. Lewis, ed., W. H. Lewis, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1966), p. 301.

Even more disturbing as you say, is the ghastly record of Christian persecution. It had begun in Our Lord's time--'Ye know not what spirit ye are of' (John of all people!). I think we must fully face the fact that when Christianity does not make a man very much better, it makes him very much worse... Conversion may make of one who was, if no better, no worse than an animal, something like a devil.


QUOTATION from Albert Schweitzer, Out of My Life and Thought: An Autobiography (New York: The New American Library, 1963).

For centuries Christianity treasured the great commandment of love and mercy as traditional truth without recognizing it as a reason for opposing slavery, witch burning and all the other ancient and medieval forms of inhumanity. It was only when Christianity experienced the influence of the thinking of the Age of Enlightenment that it was stirred into entering the struggle for humanity. The remembrance of this ought to preserve it forever from assuming any air of superiority in comparison with thought."


Perhaps over the millennia and via increased communication and heightened literacy and knowledge of others and the world, religion has not civilized man, but man has civilized religion? God improves as humankind advances.


ON THE FEAR OF ATHEISTS/ATHEISM

ATHEISM DEFENDED BY A CHRISTIAN
Atheism tends to be a term of disrepute in the Western world, but we ought to do all we can to change this situation. The honest atheist is simply a person who has looked out upon the world and has come to believe that there is no adequate evidence that God is, or that there is good evidence that God is not. Very seldom does this make a man happy or popular...A man who has no practical belief in God may nevertheless be a good man. Sometimes it is the very goodness of a man which makes him an unbeliever; he is so superlatively honest, so eager not to accept anything without adequate evidence, so sensitive to the danger of believing what is comforting, merely because it is comforting...Such a man we can only honor."

Elton Trueblood (Quaker theologian), Philosophy of Religion


A CATHOLIC DEFENSE OF ATHEISM
Atheism is clearly always a permissible view of man in a world in which God is not immediately evident.

20th Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism


ANOTHER CHRISTIAN DEFENDS ATHEISTS
Not one man in a thousand has the goodness of heart or the strength of mind to be an atheist.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge


A DEIST ASKS, "WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ATHEISTS?"
If there are atheists, who is responsible but the mercenary tyrants of souls who say: "Believe a hundred things in the Bible either manifestly abominable or mathematically impossible; otherwise the God of mercy will burn you in the fires of hell, not only for millions of billions of centuries, but for all eternity."

Voltaire, Philosophical Dictionary, entry under "Atheist, Atheism," Second Section


A DEIST DEFENDS HERETICS
All the heretics I have known have been virtuous men. They cannot afford to be deficient in any of the other virtues, as that would give advantage to their many enemies; and they have not, like orthodox sinners, such a number of friends to excuse or justify them.

Ben Franklin as quoted in Benjamin Franklin: His Wit, Wisdom, and Women by Seymour Stanton Block


A BELIEVER IN GOD WHO LIVED HAPPILY WITH ATHEISTS
I believe in God, although I live very happily with atheists...It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God.

One day a man was asked if there were any true atheists. Do you think, he replied, that there are any true Christians?

Denis Diderot (1713-1784), cited in Against the Faith by Jim Herrick


I give blood. I volunteer my organs. I donate to charities. I return my shopping cart. I never needed religion to puppeteer me through life and tell me how to feel about gays, abortion, and capital punishment or how to raise my kid. When people ask me what I am, I say Earthling.

William P.O'Neil, "Playing the God Card," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 10, 2000


I just returned from the Blood Connection in my home town where I spent an hour giving red blood cells and having the plasma pumped back into my arm. I am told that my blood will save someone's life. And, if it was someone injured by doing something stupid (such as driving while intoxicated and getting in a wreck), I have (in effect) given my blood so they might have life...and, since they did not die from their "sinful" act of driving while intoxicated because of my blood, then my blood could be said to have given them life which is metaphorically similar to the way Gospel tracts teach that Jesus shed his blood for our sins and gave use life via his "vicarious atonement." In fact I was told by my nurse that my blood or blood products would be used to save the lives of multiple persons. I bring up the connection to Christian theology because I used to be a Baptist preacher and attended Christian colleges and seminaries for six years. Back in 1997 the supervisor at my government job told our secretary that he would not give the "Man of the Year" award to a "damn atheist," so he gave the award to a Christian on the staff (so much for the separation of Church and State). Ironically, the Christian who receive that award was later fired, my supervisor passed away at a relatively young age, while old Harry the "atheist" is giving blood to save the lives of others.

Harry McCall, contributor to Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists


THE FREETHINKER/ATHEIST AS SEEN BY CHRISTIANS
I have often remarked that the Christian in his treatment of the freethinker passes through three distinct stages. In the first instance he depicts the heretic as someone almost incredibly vile. There is a good reason for this, since in order to justify his suppression, he must be loaded with moral opprobrium and the social censure used to enforce the religious condemnation. So to the orthodox imagination unbelief becomes a mere cloak to cover incredible scoundrelism. A catalogue of vices is drawn up of which the Freethinker ought to be guilty, and the heretic of religious fiction is made to live up to the program. The next stage is when the freethinker is better known, and the Christian assumes a pitying attitude. The heretic may be a decent sort of a fellow, although he is terribly mistaken in his view, but--and the "but" is altogether fatal. Then, as freethinkers become better known, he is promoted to almost the level of the Christian himself. Sometimes we are told that he may be as good as a Christian, a degree of excellence which to a visitor from another planet would hardly appear to mark an incredible degree of moral development.

Professor Drummond used to address his class, "I knew a student, an avowed atheist. He roomed with a man who contracted typhus. What do you think the atheist did? He neglected his classes to nurse his chum, who after a severe struggle, recovered. What of the nurse? He contracted the disease and died. The atheist died and went to heaven and received the 'well done, thou good and faithful servant.'" Drummond thought it worthwhile to point out that an atheist did what hundreds, probably thousands of people are doing every week in some form or another. Of course, in the majority of cases it is not advertised. Men and women help each other, nurse each other, take risks for each other, and sometimes pay the cost of the risks they run. It is only advertised when it happens to be done in the name of Christ, while the larger number of cases are known only to an immediate circle of friends. Clearly, if Christians had lied less about their opponents, if they had slandered them less, if they had been brought up with a healthier appreciation of the qualities and capabilities of normal human nature, Professor Drummond would not have needed to inform his class that an atheist might be a decent human being.

The author from whom I have taken the Drummond anecdote tells the story as illustrating the latter's liberality of mind. It is quite clear that had his hearers really understood the nature of morality, had they been taught that morality springs from, and has sole regard to the social relationships, there would have been no point in the story and no need for its telling. The atheist does not need an anecdote to inform him that a Christian may act in a human manner. He knows that human nature, like murder, will out, and the moral promptings which are expressions of so many thousands of generations of associated life cannot be prevented expressing themselves by the most anti-social religious teachings.

Chapman Cohen, Essays in Freethinking


SHOULD WE USE THE CONCEPT OF GOD TO MAKE A BETTER WORLD?
I am not of the opinion that we should make use of the concept of God in striving for a better world. This, it seems to me, is incompatible with the integrity of a modern cultured person.

Albert Einstein


IS IT EVER PROPER TO ACT AS IF GOD DID NOT EXIST?
There is a wonderful Hasidic story about a rabbi who was asked whether it is ever proper to act as if God did not exist. He responded, "Yes, when you are asked to give to charity, you should give as if there were no God to help the object of the charity."

Alan Dershowitz, Letters to a Young Lawyer


Do Your Fear What Would Happen If The World Believed In Evolution?

Christian Evolution Resource List

Darwin and Eugenics

This seems to me beside the point of arguing for or against creation, evolution, or design:

1) Even if Darwin and Galton were mass murderers, that would have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of evolutionary theories of their day or ours.

2) Injustice and inequalities and class systems can be found throughout history. Concentrating on the injustices of "eugenics" is simply to focus on one tiny aspect of all the injustices and inequalities and class systems on earth. Besides, for those who wish to discuss race, then let's discuss the history of Christianity and the extermination of "less Christian" races like the American Indians (whose extermination was compared by Puritan preachers to the following of the command of God to destroy the Canaanites), or let's discuss Christianity and slavery, or even some of Henry Morris's statements in the last ten years concerning the "curse of Ham," or let's discuss Christian racist groups like the KKK and apartheid South Africa, and Christian racist speeches throughout the ages. Bob Jones here in Greenville S.C. firmly believed and preached on his radio program that "If you are against segregation you are against God."

3) Billy and Oral and Pat are passing along their dynasty to their genetic heirs today. People tend to love their own children the best, don't they? As far as the future of eugenics goes, the human genome project is opening up a can of worms, since the odds of people coming down with various illnesses appears related to a person's genomic proclivities for those illnesses. Insurance companies are going to probably start taking advantage of that information in the future, and dividing people up into various risk categories, from low to high risk, and parents will probably want to make sure their children don't have those genetic illnesses, and the easiest way to do that is by assuring it at birth, by choosing their children's genome before conception. That will also assure the parents that their child will be healthier in both body and mind and live longer. That might be how the future will turn out. (See the movie GATTACA for some of the bad side to that scenario. But for some more positive aspects of eugenics and long lifespans read Robert Heinlein's TIME ENOUGH FOR LOVE novel.)

I happen to agree with Darwin's comments concerning eugenics below, which doesn't mean I agree with everything Darwin ever said or wrote. "Choosing who would be on the registry" is a major problem.

Darwin points out a number of practical difficulties, of which the greatest, he thought, 'would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register; ... Though I see so much difficulty,' he concludes, 'the object is a grand one; ... yet I fear [it is] utopian.'" (Darwin C.R., letter to F. Galton, January 4, 1873, in Darwin F. and Seward A.C., eds., "More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Papers," John Murray: London, 1903, Vol. II, p.43, in Bowlby J., "Charles Darwin: A New Life," [1990], 1992, W.W. Norton and Co: New York, reprint, pp.415-416)

If we were discussing say, Christianity instead of Darwinisn, I could go on about the ways Christianity has influenced society and/or political systems, with plenty of dark examples.

As we learn more about the human genome, the question of how to use that knowledge for our own betterment will continue to raise questions of a "Eugenics" like nature. Eugenics is not simply Hitler's hatred of the Jews raised to a scientific dogma among Nazi "scientists" who salivated at the thought of exterminating them. Eugenics can mean simply wishing to conceive "better" human beings, healthier in mind and body. And with modern day knowlege of the genome increasing, the temptation to try and conceive humans that are in some ways "better" will be increasingly difficult to resist. That is not "Darwinism," that is plain fact. As if the way insurance companies might use that knowledge in future to raise the rates of those highest at risk, due to their genomic content of various risk factors.

As for "Darwinism" today, it appears to have remained a staple of modern day conservatives round the world who believe the poor and destitute need to be prodded by the hot poker of their disheartening circumstances, which will only make them "stronger" (or kill them it seems), while the wealthy need more corporate welfare and tax cuts. *smile* That kind of "Darwinism" is rife among modern day political conservatives (which oddly enough seem to be backed nowadays by their religiously conservative counterparts).

"Darwin not the founder of negative eugenics"
To combat the endless distortions of Darwin's ideas, an international team of 150 specialists in the biological sciences and human studies has, over a period of 10 years, achieved an historical and critical synthesis of Darwinism and evolutionary theory. At last the matter has been clarified: Darwin is not the father of modern anti-equalitarian theories; Darwin is the founder neither of negative eugenics nor of dogmas of the elimination of the weak; Darwin is not the justifier of Victorian imperialism. In short, Darwin is not responsible for "Social Darwinism". Edited by PATRICK TORT Presses Universitaires de France

Patrick Tort has recently set up the "Institut Charles Darwin International" (International Charles Darwin Institute) which has a two-fold purpose: to encourage original research on evolutionary biology and on the history of evolutionist thought, and to publish the complete works of Darwin in French (35 volumes).

History of Science Prize:
Patrick TORT, from the UMR 7596 research unit of CNRS, for his research on the works of Charles Darwin, in particular the publication of the "Dictionnaire du Darwinisme et de l'évolution" (Dictionary of Darwinism and of Evolution) and the creation of a new methodology (analysis of discursive complexes)designed for the analysis of the history of thought systems.

Racist theories of creationists...American theories of polygenesis
American Theories of Polygenesis is the first set in the Concepts of Race in the Nineteenth Century series edited by Robert Bernasconi. The seven-volume collection brings together key works on the creationist theory of polygenesis.

A creationist theory of the origins of racial differences.
In the mid-nineteenth century, American ethnological research was dominated by two polygenists, Samuel George Morton and Louis Agassiz. Their works on the subject are represented in this set, as are the major texts of the two most famous popularizers of polygenesis, Josiah Nott and George Gliddon. Charles Hamilton Smith's work, which was adopted by supporters of polygenesis in the United States, is included in its American edition, as is the translation of Arthur Gobineau's classic essay on the inequality of the human races by Henry Hotz, a work which Nott and Hotz doctored to bring into line with American polygenesis. This set is completed with a volume by John Bachman, an American opponent of Nott and Gliddon, and another by Alexander Winchell, a representative of the next generation of American polygenists. Historians of science, anthropology, American philosophy and evolution will find this collection indispensable for understanding one of the key debates on race in the nineteenth century.

collection of rare primary sources on American polygenesis in the nineteenth century

important examination of a nineteenth-century scientific concept of race

Volume 1
Samuel George Morton, Crania Americana: Or, a Comparative View of the Skulls of Various Aboriginal Nations of North and South America. To which is prefixed an Essay on the Varieties of the Human Species (1839)

Samuel George Morton, 'Crania Aegyptiaca', from Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 9 1844)

Volume 2
Charles Hamilton Smith, The Natural History of the Human Species. With a Preliminary Abstract by S. Kneeland (1851)

Volume 3
Josiah Clark Nott and George Robins Gliddon, Types of Mankind (1854)

Volume 4
Josiah Clark Nott and George Robins Gliddon, Indigenous Races of the Earth (1857)

Volume 5
John Bachman, The Doctrine of the Unity of the Human Race Examined on the Principles of Science (1850)

Volume 6
Joseph Arthur de Count Gobineau, The Moral and Intellectual Diversity of Races, transl. By Henry Hotz (1856)

Volume 7
Alexander Winchell, Preadamites (1880)

Creationists invented the first "racial" theories
The following creationists were products and producers of the prejudices of their era concerning ideas of "race":

Use of race as a way to classify large divisions of Homo sapiens originated with Carl von Linne (Linnaeus) [a creationist]. Johann Blumenbach [another creationist] was the first to use the word "race," and use of this word has remained largely unchanged in common and medical contexts.

Creationist Carl Linnaeus, the Swedish taxonomist and botanist, was the first to place humans in a taxonomy of animals, in his Systema Naturae in 1758. He divided humans into four main groups on the basis of physical and psychological impressions: Europeans, who were "fair gentle, acute, inventive governed by laws"; Americans, who were "copper-coloured obstinate, content free regulated by customs"; Asiatics, who were "sooty severe, haughty, covetous governed by opinions"; and Africans, who were "black crafty, indolent, negligent governed by caprice."

Blumenbach, the German anthropologist and anatomist, first used the word "race" in 1775 to classify humans into five divisions: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American, and Malay. Blumenbach also coined the term "Caucasian" because he believed that the Caucasus region of Asia Minor produced "the most beautiful race of men." Both Linnaeus and Blumenbach stated that humans are one species, and the latter remarked on the arbitrary nature of his proposed categories.

These men were products and producers of the prejudices of their era, but it is remarkable how similar the concept and categories of race remain today, even after it has been widely documented that phenotypic and biochemical variations do not correlate simply with genotypic differences.