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???
http://literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-12.html
Perhaps you can point out where in chapter 12 Darwin makes the claims cited in the OP.
Was Darwin right about the geology of Loch Ness?
No.
So what?
Glen Davidson
Byers on women:
I’d ask Mr Byers where he places himself in relation to the percentiles of intelligence among the female population …
But yes, bell curves. There is no doubt that the sexes vary in many characteristics. It is not impossible intelligence is one of them. But I doubt there is an effective tool to make this distinction, even if any purpose could be served by making it.
For general purposes, I prefer to assume that men are not, after all, inferior in this regard. I’d hate for a study to confirm it that they are.
Meh…
Never change Beyers, never change. I vote Beyers and Frankie for the Theism Tag-Team of the century.
Where is it in Chapter 12 that Darwin says these things?
It’s in chapter 19 actually. It’s there:
http://literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-19.html
Ah.
Darwin did indeed make some serious mistakes regarding Genetics (and therefore Evolution). ITMT, Science has made considerable progress since Darwin first wrote his seminal books.
But Robert Byers still raises an interesting series of questions: Is true that Charles Darwin indeed speculated that women were intellectually inferior to men? Is any such presumed prejudice ascribed to Darwin still part and parcel of modern theory? Is Byers indulging in puerile ad hominem“Guilt by Association” fallacy?
The short answers are yes, no, and , YES . However (and I cannot be gentle about this) Robert Byers, all the while, resorts to specious sophistry
Robert Byers is yet again lying for Jesus. http://tinyurl.com/h9xzv8a
Here is what Darwin really said:
Now why would Darwin say such a thing? Well for a number of reasons: First of all, Darwin did indeed make some serious mistakes regarding Genetics (and therefore Evolution). That would explain why even Julian Huxley needed to concede the “eclipse of Darwinism”; in no small part due to persistent confusion about inheritance… until, that is; Neo-Darwinian Theory’s resurrection after the rediscovery of Mendel and the advent of the New Modern Synthesis.
The problem when considering the history of Lamarck, Mendel & Darwin; is that most (if not all) textbooks get the history wrong; and by doing so confound students’ understanding of the nature of science and how scientific progress in fact proceeds.
Historically and conceptually, modern Genetics and modern Evolutionary Theory are closely intertwined. Mendel and Darwin both published their masterpieces in the mid-1800s and both were promptly misunderstood and discounted for half a century. Both theories 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.
Darwin subscribed to a “blending theory” of inheritance by mistakenly believing in the inheritance of acquired characteristics including the “effects of use and disuse” That is correct; Darwin’s theory of genetics, called “Pangenesis”, is no different than what textbooks today would call “Lamarckism”. Darwin shared Lamarck’s belief that reproductive tissue somehow responded directly to environmental stimuli in order to generate adaptive changes in the next generation.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-05.html
Darwin followed this logic to its logical conclusions. The fact that women were intellectually inferior was a contingent on their environment and could easily be corrected by providing women equal opportunity to education as a men.
Don’t take my word for it. Read Darwin in his own words for yourself as he continues his reasoning in the very next paragraph:
Bottom Line: the original incarnation of Darwinism was eclipsed for good reason. He got Genetics all wrong. The resurrection of Neo-Darwinism was made possible by a rejection of “blending inheritance” and an embrace of Mendelian “particulate inheritance.
But Robert Byers query still raises an interesting lingering question. Why did Darwin seem to embrace a prejudice that presumed the contingent intellectual inferiority of women? The answer is quite straight forward:
Failing at Medicine in Edenborough, Charles Darwin was enrolled at Christ’s College, Cambridge in 1827 for a Bachelor of Arts degree as the qualification required before taking a specialized divinity course and becoming an Anglican parson. As a young man, Darwin was by no means an atheist. To the contrary he was most devout and an enthusiastically well versed in the New Testament, including the Epistles of Paul; to wit 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (among others)
Now whether or not this passage is in fact authored by Paul (begging the question of Biblical inerrancy) is moot.
These facts remain:
1 – Charles Darwin was responding to the orthodox biblical damnation of women as inferior according to how Victorian sensibilities understood the Bible (as many YEC christians still do today)
2- Darwin admitted in these relevant passages he had crossed the line into speculation. I refer you to the crucial quote: …we might conclude (but I am here wandering beyond my proper bounds)…
3 – Darwin himself rose above such silliness by suggesting that any presumed inferiority was a result of easily corrected circumstance (a suggestion many YEC Christians today still cannot abide)
4 – None of this matters! This whole line of speculation was corrected by a correct understanding of Genetics which eventually rescued the eclipsed version of “Darwinian Theory” by the new Modern Synthesis. Interestingly enough, extremely spiritual and devout Christians (such as Theodosius Dobzhansky) were key players in the formulation of the Modern Synthesis.
I find Chapter 19 to be a bit more nuanced than Robert’s summary. For example, it includes a quote from John Stuart Mill to the effect that male’s supposed mental superiority manifests itself in plodding and hammering at single thoughts.
An idea I’ve seen and heard fairly recently.
Somewhat off topic, but my father was among the first to collect and publish data demonstrating that women were, on average, healthier and longer lived than men.
Yeah but, Epigenetics proves Neo-Darwinism dead (and Darwin right again). Or something. LOL.
It is indeed a little more that ironic that Robert Byers persists in simultaneously invoking Epigenetics and defending some Fairy-Tale version of Christianity all in one breath, by yet again lying for Jesus!
What a bunch of substance-less responses to the OP. Is that the skeptical way? Because I can do empty rhetoric.
LOL! I suggest in the most respectful tone possible, on that particular score; you Mung have already convinced us!
out of curiosity:
How does a detailed examination of relevant quotes from two of Darwin’s books constitute a “substance-less response”?
You do empty rhetoric with the best of the breed.
I fin it interesting that Robert missed the relevant chapter number by five. Did he find this information by reading Darwin, or did he copy a list of conclusions from some creationist web site? Did he copy the chapter number also?
He seems obsessed with some minor points made in a rather long book. The points are rather minor, even within the chapter, and are not at all firm.
And they are still being argued, in general, if not with the specific emphasis on inferiority and superiority.
A rather important point is that the locus of these opinions regarding inferiority and superiority is conservative religion. In fact, religion seems to be the point of origin for them. The first well known argument against the subjugation of women comes from Mill, a secularist. An argument noted in Darwin’s wicked chapter.
Why does any of that matter? The rule is that people are to address the post, not the poster.
Thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Agreed, we should always address the post and what the poster said. I will make sure this response is not “substance-less” by quoting Robert Byers in detail.
Now this is what Robert Byers (the poster) said in the OP:
Charles Darwin said no such thing, as I demonstrated above! Please prove me wrong if you dare, or concede the point that you both are wrong and Robert Byers’ ad hominem accusation is “substance-less”
Meanwhile Robert Byers himself said:
Now this constitues very confused thinking on Robert Byers’ part. As far as I can make out, Byers thinks women are indeed intellectually inferior to men because they simply are women and not men.
i.e. ”Women are [for unexplained biological reasons pertaining to their womanhood] less motivated…”
… maybe it is a hormone thing. ITMT, I wonder how Lizzie (as one just for example) should respond to her evident lack of “smarts”. Maybe that would explain her absence from these exchanges, as Robert Byers seems to speculate in the OP above.
Really Mung – I can understand your public embarrassment and immediate need to conjure a distraction, some other OP in order to quickly forget this one.
But before abandoning this unsalvageable OP, can you answer just one question?
Is not Robert Byers himself guilty of the very accusation he charged Darwin?
Fret not: Your anticipated embarrassed silence will be answer enough.
I addressed the post. Robert’s post is wrong in fact, and even assuming a typo in the chapter number, wrong in substance.
Darwin is incontrovertibly correct that men are, on average, bigger and stronger than women. The only area of controversy is the area of intellectual accomplishment, and Darwin suggests that this may be due to environmental influence. There really isn’t much controversy that most of the art in museums was painted by men, and most of the “great” music performed by orchestras was composed by men.
The question is why, and Darwin would suspect some sort of selection. He is familiar with Mill’s opinion that it is largely opportunity.
Unlike most religions, Darwin does not draw any moral imperatives from the status quo. He does not suggest that inferiority is the rightful place of women.
It is fair to note that Byers is drawing or suggesting some moral quandary in Darwin’s stance. It is fair to point out that it is Byers who has the problem with women.
Or so it would appear!
An anecdote:
I remember an acquaintance, a young YEC bride who was attending university with her young husband. It turns out she needed to obey her husband by turning down her successful admittance to Med School.
Why?
Apparently it was not seemly she should embarrass her husband whose application was turned down. In short, he forbade and she obeyed just as Saint Paul would have preferred.
I always wondered how that marriage turned out….
I also wonder what Byers and Mung would have advised under similar circumstances.
I’m pretty sure that Darwin’s prejudices were inculcated by the British Christian culture of the time.
Pretty interesting if you stop to consider that two golden ages of Britain — ages of world dominance and imperial expansion — are called Elizabethan and Victorian.
Darwin’s reflexive stance might be reflected in the names of two celebrated writers of his era: George Eliot and George Sand.
Funny you should mention Victorian era misogyny regarding intelligence and George Elliot in the same post.
Here is a gem by Stephen Jay Gould explaining Victorian era antipathy to women sharing in equal educational opportunity
http://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/wbgould.pdf
Allan,
I pressed him on just that point. His answer was surprisingly honest:
keiths:
Byers:
Its not a long chapter. On wiki under darwins writings one can link up the chaptor.
Its dArwin who is making the claim of female intellectual inferiority based on biology and its essential to his whole idea of how evolution is proved.
I don’t agree sex affects smarts in biology/genes etc.
In fact we don’t agree the brain/material world affects intelligence except in the memory.
TomMueller,
You misunderstood what darwin said.
he did not say training would make females equal. He said it was biological.
The only way to fix the inferiority was by breeding, First training them as adults and then THIER kids/daughters would come out smarter and in time equal the men. however he thought this unlikely because of population numbers.
his whole point was that mEN had been selected for superior intellect biologically by competition of traits of intelligence AND THEN more successfully breeding.
So the smarter men passed on to the boys smarter traits. the girls did not get these traits passed to them.
its about evolution. Not schooling.
Thats why its in his book.
I guess I got the chapter wrong.
its a great point for showing the way darwin gathered, analyzed, and made conclusions from data. It shows how evolutionary hypothesis can be twisted into explaining anything.
It shows how evolution was radical in stating, indeed the descent of man, that sex/possibly race maybe, was affecting a human beings intelligence in contradiction to biblical teaching of mans divine origin and so intellect being unrelated to the material world.
It shows darwin had ideas on women and why is this not taught?
Who is embarrassed and hiding things?
Evolution can’t happen without inequality.
I guess that is better than having inequality by design, at least with nature it is not another example of the man keeping the brother down.
Who says Darwin’s views on women are not taught, and what does that claim even mean? The naughty passages you cite occupy about one tenth of one percent of one of Darwin’s books. One of half a dozen major works. And he’s just reporting the consensus of the times. Opinions that are still being argued. Opinions that are dogma in most of the world’s religions.
Not being taught, and yet, the book in question is freely available on at least three websites.
Robert,
How much do you earn for a living and is it above or below the national average for women where you live?
Robert Byers,
No it isn’t. That’s in a completely different book. This is but one trait in one species.
I do wonder how on earth one would measure such a vague notion. There will be tasks at which one is consistently better, others the other, and many no difference.
As an example, I took my daughter to her driving theory test, which she failed. I was interested in pass rates, so I downloaded government figures. The pass rate has declined annually from 66% when my son took it (and passed 1st time) to 50% now (so he can wipe that smirk off his face!). Evidently the bar has been steadily raised. But every year, at every test centre, girls clearly outperform boys; the former consistently above the mean, the latter below. I didn’t do a statistical test, but I’m pretty sure one could reject the null.
I’m sure there are other tests that would show a different skew. But overall – how can one say?
Even if there are genetic differences in mental abilities they would show up as differences in the mean for various subskills. My own nonscientific opinion is that skills are a result of interest and practice.
I don’t know why people differ in their interests. Some of it might be genes or hormones. Darwin notes that human differences become more pronounced at puberty. I find it interesting that these differences are still a hot topic 150 years after Darwin.
But while scientists might be right or wrong about group differences, they do not usually prescribe roll differences. Religionists, on the other hand, assign acceptable and unacceptable rolls to women.
Disclosure. My daughter teaches building construction, and my son is a stay at home mom.
Girls consistently do better than boys at GCSE (c16 years old). Numerous causal reasons have been invoked, with the usual difficulty with statistical correlations. They do tend to be more mature than boys the same age, maybe through having passed puberty earlier (or just ‘cos).
But the kind of argument in the OP is another example of the kind of black-n-white thinking that is the bane of my life here at work. Subtlety of thought, an ability to detect shade and nuance, is something of a rarity.
As to what Darwin thought about it … who cares?
Addressing that particular post and none of the posters…
LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!
… now that was funny!
Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear…. where to start?!
Robert you are simultaneously conflating too many disparate notions that it becomes difficult to answer you.
You seem to be conflating “Darwinism” with “Darwinism”; the two are not the same except in your head (it would appear). Most present distinguish between Darwin’s original thesis and the Modern Synthesis. Some (not all) go on to claim science has even transcended the Modern Synthesis as old news and we have since moved on (but we digress).
ITMT – please reread the second paragraph I cited above:
In other words, every notion you just ascribed to Darwin is patently false making you guilty of “bearing false witness”! Now I understand that the run-on sentences of Victorian Prose can be difficult, but to recap:
ITMT, You are clearly indulging in puerile ad hominem“Guilt by Association” fallacy. Please stop. You make it very difficult for me to defend the cogency of religious belief as deserving of respect, on other fora, without being subjected to abuse & ridicule.
Before disseminating untruth regarding what Darwin actually said and actually did not say, could you please reread this post:
It’s one of the top priorities of the creationist/ID movement to find moral failings in Darwin. Moral behavior and the correctness of scientific findings are entangled, don’tcha know?
The impulse seems to extent beyond religionism and beyond the evolution debate. Political correctness keeps coming back. To me, it’s all about tribes, power and money.
Touché! Well parried! A hit, a very palpable hit.
Hi Allan
Did you notice Robert Byers’ last sentence, in response to you?
OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK …
… sadly, oh most frustratingly sadly… House Rules prevent me from pursuing that monstrosity of “Ghost in the Machine” as I would prefer…
done – I am outta here.
Please address the post not the poster.
Oh no. I I say Darwins views on women intellect as inferior to men is not taught ever. Not on his wiki profile either although race comes up which was not relevant to intellect as he saw it.
Its not the consensus but a radical new idea. Nobody thought, not protestant Christianity at least, women were innately dumber then men.
Each had their role in society but no brainolgy stuff.
You say there might be genetic differences and thats what Darwin said in other words.
Yet today to say genetic differences equals inferiority/superiority in intellect is not acceptable in most of society.
So yes I think they hush this Darwin point up.
Anyways evolutionism leads to these conclusions.
It was essential ti his ideas on evolutionary change that all differences had evolutionary origins.
So men/women smarts was another important evidence for Darwin. Not just another extra point.
It was a rejection of humans having a divine identity but only a material one affected by selection.
by the way in Canada many textbooks for schools did/probably still teach boys use the right, or left, side of the brain more and girls the other.
The sides related to the smarter subjects. This to explain why women fail relative to men in science etc accomplishment to this very day and clearly. Indeed most things of intellectual prestige .
Now I understand the left/right brain thing has gone out of favour and its stupid obviously. yet human intelligence by race/sex is a subject today and evolutionism is forefront in genetic differences with winners and losers.
Creationism/Christianity always taught human equality since Adam.
Different motivations affecting everyone with different final intellect conclusions but all of the free will. Great identity provoking but still we are all just dumb babies who have learning curves based on our influences.
I suppose they are not taught in the same way that Newton’s views on alchemy are not taught. What would be the point?
What is interesting is that incorrect scientific conjectures can be corrected, whereas religious dogma cannot.
Abrahamic women still walk behind their husbands, still defer to their husbands, still face job discrimination. It is still a capital crime in much of the world to be raped.
You are very wrong here.
Darwin was very clear.
He was explaining in his whole book how differences came from selection.
He brought up the intellectual inferiority of women relative to men.
He said this was because of natural and sexual selection.
He said THE MEN , who got to pass on their traits(we say genes) did so by superior intellect over OTHER MEN.
He said there were traits of perseverance, courage, many more that led these men to prevail in defining the population groups of people.
This led to a innate biological intellectual superiority of men over women.
nothing to do with schooling. Ots about nat/sexual selection.
Thats why he brought it up. Not making wayward comments. iIts a scientific point to him.
To remedy this biological traits based on selection and passed on my reproduction ONE can do something.
he said train the girls in the TRAITS that lead to superior intellect , when they are adults, and then these traits will be passed on BIOLOGICALLY to thier offspring girls.
This must be from selection on traits and passed by reproduction. No schools need apply.
One could say, I think, he explains male intellect superiority because of selection on the males with traits of character that lead to them prevailing in reproducing.
So he sees intellect as innate from traits of charactor. Not wiring.
So the girls could rise but only after selection efforts to inprint these traits on thier brains.
He sees mankind superior to apes/animals based on selection and he sees the same equation for males over females.
This is clearly what he expects his readers to understand.
I understand him. There should be no confusion.
Its about natural/sexual selection for traits. Nothing to do with night courses.
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!
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?