Two Faced Dawkins?

Richard Dawkins is clearly disturbed by the documentary, Expelled, so disturbed that he wrote a letter (http://richarddawkins.net/article,2488,Open-Letter-to-a-victim-of-Ben-Steins-lying-propaganda,Richard-Dawkins) to a Jewish man who became indignant about Darwinism when he saw its connection with euthanasia and the Nazi death camps. In response, Dawkins tried to separate the theory from its social implications:

“I have many times written…that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live.”

It is interesting to note that even Dawkins acknowledges a relationship between Darwinism and social engineering. However, he adamantly stands on the findings of Darwin, while rejecting its social implications. Dawkins assumes that he can simply turn Darwin on and off at will, pulling him out in the science classroom, while rejecting him when it comes to social policy. It’s like denying that the human embryo is human while, at the same time, denying that this position will adversely affect abortion rates. The two can’t go together. The way we believe will affect the way we live. They can’t be easily separated.

If we believe that one race is less human or evolved than another, it is foolish to expect that this will have no social impact. It’s easier to expect that lightening will not be followed by thunder.

In contrast, Dawkins claims that:

“Darwinism gives NO support to racism of any kind. Quite the contrary. It is emphatically NOT about natural selection between races. It is about natural selection between individuals. It is true that the subtitle of The Origin of Species is ‘Of the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life’ but Darwin was using the word ‘race’ in a very different sense from ours. It is totaly clear, if you read past the title to the book itself, that a ‘favoured race’ meant something like 'that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation.’”

However, what makes “that set of individuals who possess a certain favoured genetic mutation” any different from race? Nothing! Does a race only become a race after it acquires more than one “favoured genetic mutation?” Or two? Besides, if Darwin favored a group that had only one beneficial mutation, he would certainly favor the group that had two beneficial mutations! If Darwin was about preserving a group having one beneficial mutation, he would even more want to preserve the racial group with two or more! Wouldn’t he?

In today’s political climate, the Darwinist must denounce any interest in racial engineering or politics. Recently, the Darwinist James Watson made a controversial statement about racial superiority, and, as a result, his speaking engagement was cancelled and he was widely denounced, as he should have been. Although the Darwinist might loudly protest that he will not apply Darwin to the social context, this might not reflect his true sentiments.

Dawkins oddly asserts that natural selection isn’t about races but individuals! However, if natural selection is about preserving a male and a female, it is also about preserving their lineage (or race)! There can be no rational basis for such a distinction, despite his protests to the contrary.

Daniel Mann