Today the theory of evolution is a well-supported, unifying principle in biology, which explains how life on earth began and developed. The scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.
Charles Darwin, a British naturalist, is the person most remembered for his contribution to how the process of evolution works. He wrote a book, published over 150 years ago, called On the Origin of Species, which was very controversial at the time.
His scientific explanation of how evolution occurs was essentially correct, but incomplete. On the basis of newer knowledge, and particularly advances in genetics and molecular biology, many of Darwin's concepts have developed into the more complete modern theory of evolution.
Science and religion
In the 19th century, Darwin's discoveries made an enormous impact in England, Western Europe, their colonies, and the USA, where Christianity was the dominant religion. Darwin's theory was seen to be in conflict with the literal interpretation of special creation to be found in the Bible in the Book of Genesis, and even today Darwin's work raises emotional responses among fundamentalists.
It can be argued that religion does not explain how the world works. Religion is about faith and hope and answers questions about 'why'. Science on the other hand, is rational and evidence-based and answers questions about 'how'. Religion and science should not be seen as two different worldviews as they do not provide solutions to the same questions.
What is Social Darwinism?
Darwinism and Social Darwinism have very little in common, apart from the name and a few basic concepts, which Social Darwinists misapplied. The theory that there is a hierarchy of human species into 'races' has affected international politics, economics and social development across the globe.
Social Darwinism is a false application of Darwin's ideas such as adaptation and natural selection, and does not really follow from Darwinian thinking in any way. Social Darwinism is a belief, which became popular in England, Europe and America, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher in the 19th century was one of the most important Social Darwinists.
Social Darwinism does not believe in the principle of equality of all human beings. It states that:
There was a constant struggle between humans and the strongest always would win. The strongest nation was the fittest, therefore the best, and consequently had an inherent right to rule.
Social Darwinism applied the 'survival of the fittest' to human 'races' and said that 'might makes right'. Not only was survival of the fittest seen as something natural, but it was also morally correct. It was therefore natural, normal, and proper for the strong to thrive at the expense of the weak. White Protestant Europeans had evolved much further and faster than other "races."
So-called 'white civilized' industrial nations that had technologically advanced weapons had the moral right to conquer and 'civilize' the 'savage blacks' of the world. Social Darwinism was used to rationalize imperialism, colonialism, racism and poverty.
The beliefs associated with Social Darwinism were discredited during the 20th century, as the increasing knowledge of biological, social, and cultural phenomena does not support its basic tenets.
The concept of 'human races' is scientifically invalid. Physical characteristics do not relate in any way to mental or behavioral attributes. Many people argue that the word 'race' should no longer be used for the following reasons:
Social Darwinism is by no means dead, as traces of it can be found in the present.
A) In what ways does social Darwinism still exist?
B) Should we still be using the word race when it has been scientifically proven to not exist?
C) How have you seen 'race' be used to justify behavior?
A) Its ideas are still around after such a long time, and it has
been thoroughly examined philosophically and scientifically around
the globe. Some of its followers opined that the poor are poor
because they are biologically unfit and/or morally poor,
interfering with the evolutionary process.There are a lot of
meanings for the term ‘social Darwinism.’ Often, the term is
rebranded by modern socialists to try and equate the statement “a
person earned the money they made” with “racism, slavery, and the
holocaust, etc.” This is a deeply evil kind of rhetoric for many
reasons but partly because such associations run both ways. Trying
to smear constructive business activities by associating them with
horrific social arrangements also has the result of associating
horrible social arrangements with constructive and legitimate
business activities. And it needs to stop.
Yes, some people are capable of legitimately and fairly earning more money than others in this moment. However none of that is a testament to someone’s inherent worth as a human being, or an excuse to deprive them of their human rights.
B) The plague of racism has in many ways been increasing in the
last few years. Whether one looks at Hungary, Germany, Myanmar,
India or Brazil, racists are becoming more visible and getting
elected to public office.Then there were the horrors of the
slaughters in New Zealand and Sri Lanka.In the United States, the
president has denounced Mexicans as drug dealers and rapists
described some poor nations as, “shithole countries,” and failed to
reject an endorsement from a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. He
even went so far as to call at least some neo-Nazis very fine
people. One might be forgiven for thinking that what his campaign
slogan really meant was Make America White Again.
In combating this increase in racism, there are two primary aspects to consider. The first is that the very idea of “race” is a lie: as the American Society of Human Genetics, the largest professional organization of scientists in the field.The science of genetics demonstrates that humans cannot be divided into biologically distinct subcategories and it challenges the traditional concept of different races of humans as biologically separate and distinct. This is validated by many decades of research. In other words race itself is a social construct with no biological basis.In 2014, more than 130 leading population geneticists condemned the idea that genetic differences account for the economic, political, social and behavioral diversity around the world. In fact said a 2018 article in Scientific American, there is a broad scientific consensus that when it comes to genes there is just as much diversity within racial and ethnic groups as there is across them.And the Human Genome Project has confirmed that the genomes found around the globe are 99.9 percent identical in every person. Hence the very idea of different “races” is nonsense.
C) Protests by whites against affirmative action focus on the
concern that qualified whites will be subordinated to less
qualified blacks. To examine the possibility that the reversal of
the traditional status relationship rather than competence inequity
underlies resistance to affirmative action a study of prosocial
behavior was conducted in which 96 white males interacted with a
black or white males who was introduced as either their supervisor
or subordinate and as either higher or lowe in cognitive ability
than themselves. The findings indicate that status not ability,
influences the frequency of helping blacks whereas ability not
status, primarily influences behavior toward whites. Specifically,
black subordinates were favored relative to black supervisors,
regardless of ability, and high ability whites elicited more help
than low ability whites. Subsequent ratings revealed that subjects
evaluated even high ability blacks as less competent than
themselves while they acknowledged the greater competence of high
ability whites. Social Psychology Quarterly (SPQ) publishes
theoretical and empirical papers on the link between the individual
and society including the study of the relations of individuals to
one another as well as to groups, collectivities and institutions.
It also includes the study of intra individual processes insofar as
they substantially influence or are influenced by social structure
and process. SPQ is genuinely interdisciplinary, publishing works
by both sociologists and psychologists. Published quarterly in
March, June, September and December.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.