Was Darwin right about female innate intellectual inferiority, why, and how to correct.??

Charles Darwin in his book the Descent of Man (chap12) insisted that womewn were clearly biologically intellectually inferior to men. He said if you compare the accomplishments of men verses women the women not only lose but show the common average must be very inferior of women relative to men.

He said this was not from society but from biology.

In fact he used this case as a typical case in the evidences he listed in his book to show how mankind etc had acquired the traits we have. Not from god but merely steps along the way while evolving .

He said that natural selection of males choosing females had led to aggression in males and so the in the battles long agop the men with supeior intellectual, courage, energy, and other attributes had prevailed over men with inferior same traits. This leading to a intellectual rise in mankind but especially in men. SINCE women did not struggle for the male there had been no selection on the female to have superior traits as listed above and so that is the reason she is intellectually biological inferior to men.

In fact Darwin said it was only because during breeding that the concept of equal transmission of characters allowed the female offspring to have some closing parity with male offspring. Otherwise the intellectual difference between males and females would be fantastic.

Darwin thought the only way to raise the women was by careful breeding of the male traits in her daughters and these breeding would lead to a intellectual rise. Though unlikely due to population numbers.

WELL. Was he right on some or all of these ideas?

If not was it a accurate sample of all general concept of evolution and so wrong?

I never hear evolutionists talk about this important idea of Darwin! Is it rejected or hushed or accepted as a option?

As a YEC creationist we don’t agree there can be innate differences between humans on smarts. this because outr intelligence is in the immaterial soul and unaffected by the material world. So all babies are created/later born with exactually the same intellectual abilities. Only after birth is there influences that bring different motivations in combination with information within reach.

However evolutionists must accept the option of Darwin or anyone on the issue of gender intellectual biological that there is innate differences in smarts. they can say none but not too loud. Its a option by their own philosophy.

there are not many women on TSZ but I think this is a good subject and yes i think it embarrasses evolutionism but thats beside the point.

What do evolutionists think???

 

 

61 thoughts on “Was Darwin right about female innate intellectual inferiority, why, and how to correct.??

  1. TomMueller: Yes this is correct.
    Darwin also said in that very next paragraph I pointed out to you:

    What part of that did you not understand?

    ITMT – I note with some bemusement that YOU YOURSELF adamantly contend that women are intellectually inferior to men according to the tenets of YEC.

    So what is your argument with Darwin again?

    Your not reading Darwin right.
    He says the adult women after being trained NOW CAN REPRODUCE A DAUGHTER with the higher biological intellectual standard as men.
    This is about natural/sexual selection affecting inherited traits.
    NOTHING to do with socialization(education).
    his book was about WHY traits are passed on to offspring. His answer is nat/sex selection.
    Women were biologically intellectually inferior because the TRAITS that men had got FROM selection pressures with reproduction results WERE never SELECTED FOR in women.
    By artificial interference they could be trained for these traits AND THEN (lamark) they would be passed on BIOLOGICALLY to thier offspring and so daughters.
    Thus a remedy to raise the innate smarts of girls BUT until then they are innately inferior in the brain.
    This is my thread.
    Nothing to do with what I think about female smarts relative to men.

    I did say the biblical and presumed general belief I hold is ALL humans are conceived/born with the same innate intellect means. This because our intellect is our immaterial soul and we are made in Gods image.
    only after birth are influences and motivations kicking in.
    I do see a motivation in males that is almost biological. Yet its just a motivation.
    Men were created to be accomplished while women were created to help thier man. So I see this as the reason for women not being able, on a curve, to compete intellectually with men.
    Yet just a curve and relative to other influences of some society. Its just motivation and not as Darwin/evolutionism teaches IN THE BRAIN and wiring.

  2. OMagain: Not sure if you’ve noticed but it does not work like that. Children of French people still need to learn how to speak French!

    i don’t understand your point!
    Darwin is saying its biological. nothing to do with school. Except schooling can affect 9lamnarck) traits of women and then these women bio pass on to their daughters.
    Yet all must move through natural and sexual selection to affect the dna as it were.
    Darwin is insisting women are bio intellect inferior due to genetics.
    Do you agree? If he was wrong why not other places or all of them?
    This is important and should be a case study for evolutionists and creationists teachers in schools on these subjects.
    Why am I the first to say so? Hmmm!

  3. Robert Byers: Your not reading Darwin right.
    He says the adult women after being trained NOW CAN REPRODUCE A DAUGHTER with the higher biological intellectual standard as men.
    This is about natural/sexual selection affecting inherited traits.
    NOTHING to do with socialization(education).
    his book was about WHY traits are passed on to offspring. His answer is nat/sex selection.
    Women were biologically intellectually inferior because the TRAITS that men had got FROM selection pressures with reproduction results WERE never SELECTED FOR in women.
    By artificial interference they could be trained for these traits AND THEN (lamark) they would be passed on BIOLOGICALLY to thier offspring and so daughters.

    You are still not getting it correct!

    You are clearly forgetting that Darwin believed that the “the effects of use and disuse” were passed from one generation to the next? That is why he suggested women were contingently lower but could rise to the same intellectual standard as men with proper education.

    That error in Darwin’s thinking (i.e “the effects of use and disuse”) explained why his theory required several more “kicks at the can” before final acceptance. Put simply: the Theory of Evolution itself evolved in response to an emerging understanding of Genetics.

    Robert Byers: I did say the biblical and presumed general belief I hold is ALL humans are conceived/born with the same innate intellect means. This because our intellect is our immaterial soul and we are made in Gods image.
    only after birth are influences and motivations kicking in.
    I do see a motivation in males that is almost biological. Yet its just a motivation.
    Men were created to be accomplished while women were created to help thier man. So I see this as the reason for women not being able, on a curve, to compete intellectually with men.

    You are being intellectually dishonest by damning Darwin for a fallacy HE DID NOT hold but YOU YOURSELF DO hold.

  4. TomMueller: You are still not getting it correct!

    You are clearly forgetting that Darwin believed that the “the effects of use and disuse” were passed from one generation to the next?That is why he suggested women were contingently lower but could rise to the same intellectual standard as men with proper education.

    That error in Darwin’s thinking (i.e “the effects of use and disuse”) explained why his theory required several more “kicks at the can” before final acceptance. Put simply: the Theory of Evolution itself evolved in response to an emerging understanding of Genetics.

    You are being intellectually dishonest by damning Darwin for a fallacy HE DID NOT hold but YOU YOURSELF DO hold.

    I am not damning him but the world might at this point. Thety just don’t know what he said.
    Nothing like what I said it as I explained.
    Anyways.
    I agree with you Darwin said usae/disuse was passed in to the next generation.
    YES. Thats right.
    Yet its not education but rather the traits that are pasased on. He said if women were educated in traits of energy, perservernce, etc etc etc and i guess careful education THEN AND ONLY THEN would these girl;s pass on to their daughters by genetics the ability to be as intelligent as men.
    His point was men were innately smarter(genes) because these traits had been selected for in the winning(reproducing) males. So the boys inherited these traits and effortlessly were intellectually superior to the females.
    Darwin insisted women were dumber then men by biology affecting the brain.
    The remedy to fix it was to dupilcate what nature had done in making guys smarter innately.
    He said that. You should understand this by reading it.
    You should just agree or disagree and say why!
    Likewise if Darwin was wrong about this then possibly other stuff. Or most of it. possibly its all superficial observations and reasonings.

  5. Robert Byers: He said if women were educated in traits of energy, perservernce, etc etc etc and i guess careful education THEN AND ONLY THEN would these girl;s pass on to their daughters by genetics the ability to be as intelligent as men… Darwin insisted women were dumber then men by biology affecting the brain. The remedy to fix it was to dupilcate what nature had done in making guys smarter innately.
    He said that. You should understand this by reading it.

    But why would he imply that women need education to become smarter? Isn’t this the job for natural selection? Doesn’t natural selection work after all?

  6. Erik: But why would he imply that women need education to become smarter? Isn’t this the job for natural selection? Doesn’t natural selection work after all?

    he is saying its the traits that need to be taught in reality. Not actual information.
    This will stick to the girls genes and they will pass it to their female offspring.
    It is Lamarkism. It is also to fix the innate intellect inequality by artificial selection.
    He is really just showing that what happened with the boys over time could be done with the girls by artificial means.
    Darwin probably doesn’t mean they don’t have a brain wiring for intelligence like males but they don’t have the attributes of males that lead and give supieor intelligence.
    Whats on the genes for him is attributes of character and not actual smarts.
    Of coarse its relative. He would of said English women were living intellectually superior to natives in third world countries.

    His whole point was that sexualnatural selection , on the genes, had made men intellectual biologically superior to women.
    It was the essence of all his natural/sexual selection concept.
    Do evolutionists disagree these days/ why just in this area if so?

  7. Erik,

    But why would he imply that women need education to become smarter? Isn’t this the job for natural selection? Doesn’t natural selection work after all?

    Natural selection works on variation. He believed that a potential source of variation was acquired characteristics. Of course, he was wrong.

  8. Of course the tendency to behave smartly can improve by education and pass from generation to generation.

  9. petrushka:
    Of course the tendency to behave smartly can improve by education and pass from generation to generation.

    Not biologically. Just by sociology. I don’t think education does make one smarter. Just adds knowledge. Yet not understanding or wisdom which the bible teaches is what smarter really is.

  10. Robert Byers: Darwin insisted women were dumber then men by biology affecting the brain.

    No – again, that is not what Darwin said. I think you cannot wrap your head around the meaning of the word “contingent”.

    ITMT I note that Robert Byers persists in insisting that women are divinely ordained to be “dumber then men” – and that women’s inferior status is as indelible as Byers’ merciless G-d is immoveable.

  11. TomMueller: No – again, that is not what Darwin said.I think you cannot wrap your head around the meaning of the word “contingent”.

    ITMT I note that Robert Byers persists in insisting that women are divinely ordained to be “dumber then men” – and that women’s inferior status is as indelible as Byers’ merciless G-d is immoveable.

    We went through it. Darwin did say this.
    He did say nat/sex selection had SELECTED men to be intellectually biologically superior.
    It could be changed BUT ONLY by reverse selection and so affecting the biology.
    Somebody is wrong here.

    I said many times the bible does not teach women are innately dumber then men.
    Nothing to do with the intellect.
    only there is a motivational difference.
    This will affect, in the original world or the present fallen one, results in intellectual ability pound for pound.
    Yes the man identity makes him more on the make with results in a curve in smartness.
    yet its all still in the free will and on curves which are relative to other matters.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.