Re: your mail

[Daniel Kronemann <kron4155@uidaho.edu>]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Douglas wrote:

> Dear visionaries,
>
> In response to Melynda's post, two thoughts.
>
> How about this? Would it be appropriate for a government school to teach
> that one form of early Darwinism taught that blacks were one of the
> intermediate steps between primates and full humans? Of course I don't
> think that -- all of us are descended from Adam and Eve.

It would be appropriate to say that it existed a while ago, and that other
groups of people believe we all descended from Adam and Eve.  It would
then be appropriate to say evidence now disproves the theory that black
were an intermeditate race and that it is not used in current theory.
However, it would be inappropriate to say we didn't descend from Adam and
Eve as the Bible says based on evidence because the statement "we
descended from Adam and Eve as the Bible says" because that Bible story is
not a matter of scienctific inquery so but of faith and belief, something
modern science doesn't (or shouldn't) deal with.  Its not equipped to do
so.  Different tools (those offered by theology and philosophy) are better
suited for that debate.  We can try to trace back, using scienctific
knowledge to when we think humans first existed on the planet and try to
figure out what it was like back then and what our ancestors were like.
Incidentally, there is good evidence to support that every modern human is
descended from one human female.  Its the "Eve" Theory.

> But I am curious -- if we all evolved out of the primordial goo, then
> was the process of natural selection obligated to observe the
> strictures of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I'm not sure I understand this question or what you are trying to get at.
How I understand it is to ask an analogous question.   Are earthquakes
obligated to follow our zoning laws?  I don't understand the question.

> Any biological reason why every branch of the humanoid fauna has to
> progress at exactly the same rate?

No.  And it hasn't.  Many humanoid species existed before and at the same
time as our own.  At once time there were about 6 different humanoid
species on earth, according to evidence.  But I'm wondering if you might
be thinking that there are in fact "races of humans."  Biologically
speaking there is no such thing as the black race, or Asian race or
anything like that.  Their is no biological difference between a white man
and a black man except for differences in allelic expressions of certain
genes.  But we are all the same species, and subspecies, with the same
genes.

> What I am trying to get up the nerve to ask (given the Chinese fire
> drill earlier about coming out in the classroom) is this: is there any
> scientific reason anyone can give me to show that Darwinism is not
> necessarily, irredeemably racist?

I'm not sure I understand this question either.  But I will take a stab at
it.  Many people have used Darwinism and the work of Darwin to further
racist agendas.  But I don't think it is necessarily racist.  Do you have
an example?

Love

Daniel
XOXOXO