From The Book: A Particular Line of Reasoning, by Dr. Steven Nur Ahmed

Book Cover Earthcolony

15.2

CHARLES DARWIN: FRUIT OF A POISONOUS TREE

For a man who epitomizes in so many ways the very spirit of the modern scientific method by his meticulous natural observations and application of inductive reasoning, Charles Darwin either knowingly or unknowingly welds onto his grand theory of natural selection several theoretical corollaries which fit straight onto the line of reasoning which we have so painstakingly traced from Plato and Aristotle.[1]   His book was entitled: ‘On the Origen of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for life’ (1859’). We are only concerned with those corollary theories which support the thesis of this book and so shall not challenge Darwin’s major theory except to say that it, too, originates within the set of assumptions and methodology laid out by Aristotle.  Simply put, Darwin is an Aristotelian naturalist.  What underlies his theory is the same assumption of proportionate justice or natural law which is central to Aristotle’s theory of nature.

The first evidence to support the thesis that Darwin continues in the line of reasoning we have previously identified is found in ‘The Descent of Man’. Besides giving credence to the concept of ‘race’, he states regarding hominid physical differences that there are corresponding ‘mental’ differences: “The races differ also in constitution,” and “Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct…partly in their intellectual faculties.”[2] Darwin then takes a major leap far above the bar raised by Plato and Aristotle’s admonition to kill all deformed infants.  He posits the theory of extinction as being a by-product of natural selection, i.e., the fitness or unfitness of a species as measured by their respective number of offspring, competitive success in obtaining material resources, and adaptation to changing environmental conditions. He states the outcome of his natural drama in these words: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at the present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”[3]  Here he cleverly states that eventually there will be a greater gap between the highest race and the lowest primate, once Negroes become extinct.

But Darwin also follows closely Aristotle’s evaluation of women.  He parallels closely the comments made by Aristotle in his ‘History of Animals’. Therein he states that women suffer a monthly episode of ‘catamania’[4] Darwin states more categorically that women are intellectually inferior to man and that she is more like the lower races.  He then quotes his cousin Francis Galton: “…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 women.”[5] As we shall see this is the same application of the normal distribution curve to support the modern theory of inherent intellectual differences between the ‘races’. He concludes by saying: “Thus, man has ultimately become superior to women.”[6] With but a few changes, we may thus peek Darwin’s hidden premise that ‘white men have ultimately become superior to all other races both male and females.’  In fact he says as much.

In his book: ‘The Decent of Man’, Darwin predicts the global genocide of savage races by a superior race.   Once again his central theory of proportionate justice designated by him to be ‘natural selection’ is the ‘invisible hand’ working to adjust survival merit based upon the greater or lesser actualization of survival potential in competing gene pools.  Never mind at this point the fallacious assumption of ‘pure race’ as promulgated by Plato and Aristotle.  Rather, let us remember Plato’s query in ‘the Republic’: ‘How do we make them believe?’ The point here is that the genocidal outcome predicted by Darwin is less the operation of nature and more the product of solicitation and conspiracy.

It is no coincidence that Darwin’s description of nature is so very much analogous with Adam Smith’s central theory of capitalism.[7] Both theorists argue from Aristotle’s natural law theory.  Adam Smith’s interests lie within a far more limited scope of nature; indeed it is an artificial replication of nature revealed through the ‘market place’. But the dynamic interaction of supply and demand nevertheless manifests as the same struggle of the fit which Darwin describes in the natural order.  Deducible from the thesis of both Darwin and Smith is the conclusion that some human groups will be wiped from the face of the earth or the market place, forever.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] Charles Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and the Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, William Benton, Publisher, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Great Books, 1952

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Aristotle, History of Animals, [581]

[5] Ibid, Chapter 19; pp 566-567

[6] Ibid

[7] Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776