Ethan Clive Osgoode
Since Oct 26, 2002

view home page, enter name:

A bigger version of this page is being developed here

Darwinism-Eugenics v0.5

An Investigation into Inbred Science.

"Those who have accepted evolution in the belief that it was not anti-Christian may well revise their conclusions... "

- William Jennings Bryan

"The influence primarily responsible for the modern eugenics movement was the establishment of the doctrine of organic evolution following the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859."

- Samuel J. Holmes, Human Genetics, 1936, chapter 25.

Darwin Medal "A silver medal... given... in reward for work of acknowledged distinction in the broad area of biology in which Charles Darwin worked" - The Royal Society.
Leonard Darwin Eugenics Society, president 1911-1928, honorary president 1928-1943, life fellow, 1937. Cambridge Eugenics Society. On general committee (president), First International Eugenics Congress 1912. Eugenics Education Society. Charles Darwin's son. 1922 letter from Davenport to Leonard Darwin about Alfred Ploetz and German cooperation. 1923 letter from the German Society of Race Hygiene to Leonard Darwin.
"As an agency making for progress, conscious selection must replace the blind forces of natural selection; and men must utilize all the knowledge acquired by studying the process of evolution in the past in order to promote moral and physical progress in the future. The nation which first takes this great work thoroughly in hand will surely not only win in all matters of international competition, but will be given a place of honour in the history of the world."

- Leonard Darwin, Presidential address, First International Eugenics Congress, 1912.
Florence Henrietta Darwin Eugenics Society. Third wife of Leonard Darwin. Cousin of the writer Virgina Woolf (a eugenist).
Francis Darwin Darwin Medalist 1912. Cambridge Eugenics Society.
Horace Darwin Cambridge Eugenics Society. Charles Darwin's son. Horace Darwin had three children: Erasmus, Emma Nora, and Ruth Frances. Emma Nora Darwin married Sir J. Barlow, royal physician and Eugenics Society member. Like Lord Dawson, Barlow was a physician to King George V.
Ruth Frances Darwin Horace Darwin's daughter. Secretary of the Cambridge Association for the Care of the Feeble Minded (let's call it the CACFM for short). It seems that women were not allowed to join the Cambridge Eugenics Society, so many notable Cambridge-affiliated ladies joined the CACFM instead. For example, Florence Keynes (John Maynard Keynes's mother) and Catherine Whetham (wife of eugenist William Dampier Whetham). In 1910 the CACFM and the Cambridge Eugenics Society cooperated to pressure the government to pass a bill for the compulsory segregation of the "feeble-minded." The Ida Darwin Hospital was one result of this effort. Ida Darwin was Horace Darwin's wife. Letter from Ida Darwin to eugenist Karl Pearson, 1912. The letter concerns the Mental Deficiency Act. Many interesting names appear on the CACFM committee letterhead.

Ruth Francis Darwin married the famous eugenist William Rees-Thomas.

George Howard Darwin Cambridge Eugenics Society. Charles Darwin's son.
Maud de Puy Darwin Eugenics Society fellow 1925, life fellow 1937. Central Committee for Mental Welfare. Wife of George Howard Darwin.
Charles Galton Darwin Eugenics Society life fellow, vice-president 1939, director 1939, president 1953-1959, committee 1960. Grandson of Charles Darwin, son of George Howard Darwin. Chairman of Promising Families. Wrote for the racist journal Mankind Quarterly, which was edited by Von Verschuer (Josef Mengele's mentor).
Francis Galton Darwin Medalist 1902. Charles Darwin's cousin. Coined the word eugenics in the early 1880s. Founded the Eugenics Education Society, which later became the Eugenics Society (the British one). Anti-Mendelian.
"I take Eugenics very seriously, feeling that its principles ought to become one of the dominant motives in a civilised nation, much as if they were one of its religious tenets." - Galton, Memoirs

"[Eugenics] has indeed strong claims to become an orthodox religious tenet of the future, for Eugenics co-operates with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races... The first and main point is to secure the general intellectual acceptance of Eugenics... then let its principles work into the heart of the nation, which will gradually give practical effect to them in ways that we may not wholly forsee." - Galton, Eugenics, its Definition, Scope, and Aims.

It strikes me that the Jews are specialised for a parasitical existence upon other nations" - Galton to de Candolle, 1884 (Pearson's Life and Letters of Galton, vol.2, pg 209).

Thomas Henry Huxley Darwin Medalist 1894. Tireless anti-religious polemicist, Darwin's "Bulldog". Huxley expended massive effort attacking God, Christianity, the Catholic Church, and even the Salvation Army.
"In addition to the truth of the doctrine of evolution, indeed, one of its greatest merits in my eyes, is the fact that it occupies a position of complete and irreconcilable antagonism to that vigorous and consistent enemy of the highest intellectual, moral, and social life of mankind--the Catholic Church."

- T.H Huxley, Darwiniana.

Julian Huxley Darwin Medalist 1956. Grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley. Eugenics Society member, fellow, council member, vice-president, president. Euthanasia Society executive committee. Abortion Law Reform Society vice-president. Author of Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942). Collaborated with J.S. Haldane and H.G. Wells on the popular 1920s evolution propaganda ("The Incontrovertible Fact of Evolution") series Science of Life. Popularized the French works of Teilhard de Chardin (Piltdown Man, Peking Man.) Julian won the UNESCO Kalinga prize. Margaret Mead and Konrad Lorenz also won it. Not surprising, really, since Julian was the co-founder and first director-general (1946-1948) of UNESCO. I hope you weren't thinking of donating any money to UNESCO.
"For a justification of our moral code we no longer have to have recourse to theological revelation, or to a metaphysical Absolute; Freud in combination with Darwin suffice to give us our philosophic vision." - Julian Huxley, Philosophy in a World at War.
Huxley was a long-time friend of Nobel laureate Konrad Lorenz, who worked on Nazi Racial hygiene. It is curious to note that Julian Huxley was a friend of Richard Dawkins's grandfather, and Konrad Lorenz was a colleague of Dawkins' Ph.D supervisor. Humanism, transhumanism. Socialism.
Karl Pearson Darwin Medalist 1898. First Galton Professor of Eugenics 1911-1933, University College London. Head of Galton's Eugenics Record Office 1906. Head of the Biometric laboratory. Marxist. Anti-Mendelian. Annals of Eugenics. Co-founded the journal Biometrika, with Weldon and Charles Davenport as editors. After spending some time in Germany and discovering his roots, Carl Pearson changed his name to "Karl" Pearson.
"The garden of humanity is very full of weeds, nurture will never transform them into flowers; the eugenist calls upon the rulers of mankind to see that there shall be space in the garden, freed of weeds, for individuals and races of finer growth to develop with the full bloom possible to their species."

- Karl Pearson, Life and Letters of Francis Galton, vol.3.

Pearson wrote much on philosophy, and Irrationalism was his particular philosophy of science. In conjunction with the raving atheist mathematician Clifford, Pearson produced a philosophical foundation of science for the rest of us to believe in. Irrationalism is much-favoured among charlatans in every sphere. After all, if you can get others to adopt Irrationalism, they may stop making annoying requests for proof, evidence, and truth. Although almost no Darwinians today have ever seen Pearson's or Clifford's books, almost all are scientific Irrationalists. You will recognize what I mean after pondering the following example.

On page 288 of Life and Letters of Galton, vol.3 (1930), Pearson cites Bateson's condemnation of the Galtonian-Pearsonian rubber science of statistical heredity (in Mendel's Principles of Heredity, 1906, W. Bateson) as an example of the hard times that has befallen him and Galton...

"Of the so-called investigations of heredity pursued by extensions of Galton's non-analytical method and promoted by Prof. Pearson and the English Biometrical School it is now scarcely necessary to speak... A preliminary acquaintance with the natural history of heredity and variation was sufficient to throw doubt on the foundation of these elaborate researches. To those who hereafter may study this episode in the history of biological science it will appear inexplicable that work so unsound should have been respectfully received by the scientific world... The only alternatives open to the inventors of those methods were either to abandon their delusions or to deny the truth of Mendelian facts. In choosing the latter course they have certainly succeeded in delaying recognition of the value of Mendelism..."
What is Pearson's reply to this? Why, it is merely this, a straightforward profession of Irrationalism, appearing on the same page:
"The author of Mendel's Principles failed to realise that... all scientific knowledge is relative, there is no absolute truth in science..."
It isn't necessary to quote more such displays because, dear Reader, you have heard it a thousand times from Darwinians; you know how the Irrationalism head-trip goes. You already know the rest of the Irrationalism script.

[To do: Pearson versus Sir George Stokes; fake scientist versus real one.]

R. A. Fisher Darwin Medalist 1948. Cambridge Eugenics Society, founder (1911), secretary. Eugenics Education Society member, Eugenics Society secretary, vice-president, director, fellow, life fellow. Galton Chair of Eugenics 1933-1943, University College London. Galton Lab. Third Balfour professor of genetics, Cambridge.
"Fisher... could be regarded as Darwin's greatest twentieth-century successor." - Richard Dawkins.
Fisher's principal interest was eugenics. His text Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930) is said by darwinians to have been an pillar of the modern synthesis and an all-round fine work of science. We shall see about that. [The book is available for download in the Eugenics section. Commentary coming soon].

One would be hard put to say what Fisher's contributions to biology were, if any. Aside from his contributions to statistics, Fisher is remembered for a few other things. (1) The herculean effort he expended trying to prove that Mendel was a fraud, and (2) his silly "probability magnifier" idea. That is, natural selection magnifies little probabilities into big ones. This idea lived on, and may have inspired Douglas Adams's "improbability generator".
Albert Charles Seward Darwin Medalist 1934. Eugenics Society member, vice-president. Cambridge Eugenics Society member, president.
J. B. S. Haldane Darwin Medalist 1952. Eugenics Society member. Haldane was instrumental in formulating the modern synthesis of darwinism. Darwinians have a marked habit of heaping superlative praise on themselves, and certainly Haldane recieved a lot of that. However, with the advent of scanned books and electronic archives of musty old tomes, we can now read Haldane for ourselves and discover what a crackpot he was. Not only was he a Marxist, he was a True Believer, owned by Stalin. Haldane defended Trofim Lysenko in print, on the radio, and in public speeches.

Haldane's view on euthanasia is interesting. He did not really like the idea of widespread murder of invalids and deformed children, or gassing old people. Not from any humanitarian or moral reason (he was after all a Marxist) but because it could be readily abused - it is all too easy for the wrong people to end up gassed. Instead, he believed that people who are unproductive and useless to the State should simply kill themselves.

Haldane was an enthusiastic supporter of poison gas and chemical warfare. The World Transhumanist Association (a eugenics organization) offers a Haldane Award "to the student paper that best advances transhumanist thought, analysis or applications."

[Ursula Phillip, Haldane's colleague, career-ruination, Eugenics Society member -- to do.]

Some Haldane articles:
In Defense of Lysenko
Some Great Men: Karl Marx

Walter Weldon Eugenics Society. Editor of Biometrika. Anti-Mendelian.
Grafton Elliot Smith Eugenics Society. Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man.
Arthur Keith Eugenics Society, council 1927, 1937. British Association for the Advancement of Science. Piltdown Man. Keith wrote an essay explaining some details about how Charles Darwin made his money. I'm looking for this essay.
Lord Dawson Bertrand Edward Dawson. Eugenics Society, consultative council 1937. Physician to the Royal Family. In 1936 Dawson committed regicide by injecting King George V with a lethal dose of morphine and cocaine. Lambeth Conference.
John Maynard Keynes Treasurer, Cambridge Eugenics Society. Eugenics Society director 1937-1944, vice-president 1937, World Bank govenor. Darwinism and Eugenics meets Economics. Freepers should be familiar with this man. A disciple of Malthus and Galton. Keynes wrote The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, and some stuff that appeared in Eugenics Review. His nephew William Milo Keynes was also a member of the Eugenics Society. William Milo Keynes was the son of Margaret Darwin, granddaughter of Charles Darwin.

It's reasonable to assume that someone who joins the Eugenics Society thinks himself genetically superior, more biologically fit than the rest, and a valuable contributor to the nation's germ-plasm. After all, could you imagine that someone would join the Eugenics Society if they didn't believe that about themselves? Would someone who considers himself a hereditary reject and a biological error join the Eugenics Society and thereby give them a promising candidate for sterilization or euthanasia? But John Maynard Keynes was queer. He was gay. He left no offspring. Imagine that, a gay eugenist. How did he rationalize that in his mind? We wonder.

John R. Baker Cytologist, Oxford zoology department. Eugenics Society, fellow, 1931, 1937, 1957. Developed the Volpar contraceptive, tested on black women in the USA. Contributed to Julian Huxely's Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1944). Wrote Science and the Planned State (1946). Race: Foundation for Human Understanding (Oxford 1974). Julian Huxley, Scientist and World Citizen (1978). Baker wrote the biology section of the leftist encyclopedia An Outline for Boys and Girls (1932), some of which you can read here. Baker was a mendacious intellectual, even more direct with lies and distortions than, say, Julian Huxley. Read, for example, his 1932 radio lecture Missing Links.
Henry Fairfield Osborn Darwin Medalist 1918. American Eugenics Society, [co-founder]. Curator and president of the American Museum of Natural History (1890s-1930). Studied under T.H. Huxley. Co-organizer of the 2nd Internation Eugenics Congress. [Galton Society member ?] . Nebraska Man. Horse Evolution. Examined Piltdown Man in 1921 and pronounced it genuine. McGregor frauds. [Seems that HF Osborn was involved in a lot of frauds.] AAAS president [pre-war]. [2nd International Congress of Eugenics, executive committee].
Frederick Osborn Galton Society member, 1928, secretary 1931. Research associate, 1928, American Museum of Natural History. Co-founder of American Eugenics Society, president 1946-1952. Founding trustee of the Pioneer Fund, 1937. Princeton Curriculum Committee. Princeton Psychology Department Council. Member of the American Society of Human Genetics. Henry Fairfield Osborn's cousin. With John D. Rockefeller III, Frederick Osborn co-founded the Population Council in 1953. Osborn was an outright racist who advocated that eugenists must conceal their true goals to evade the growing popular anti-eugenical sentiment.
"Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under a name other than eugenics". "Heredity clinics are the first eugenic proposals that have been adopted in a practical form and accepted by the public... The word eugenics is not associated with them." "The most important eugenic policy at this time is to see that birth control is made equally available to all individuals in every class of society."

- Frederick Osborn, Future of Human Heredity, 1968.

Horatio Newman American Eugenics Society member. Zoology professor at the University of Chicago. Scopes trial witness. Author of Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, and Twins: A Study on Heredity and Environment (1937). [What is this creepy obsession eugenists have with twins?] Newman taught eugenics in his "evolutionary biology" class for more than 17 years and his darwinian scientific peers didn't raise an eyebrow about it.
Vernon Kellogg American Eugenics Society, consultative committee, advisory council, member. Trustee of the Rockefeller Institute. Related to Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (also a member of the AES) who invented cornflakes. It's always amusing to see a Darwinian eugenist lambasting his critic as a science-denier...
"Must all this overwhelming testimony that man is an evolutionary product be rehearsed again because Mr. Bryan says that it doesn't exist; or that, if it exists, it need not be taken into account by the truly informed, who have in the book of Genesis a complete manual of world and human origin?"

- V. Kellog, The Modern View of Evolution, April, 1924.

Charles Davenport Eugenics Society, vice-president 1931. American Eugenics Society. First International Eugenics Congress 1912, Eugenics Records Office. Station for Experimental Evolution. International Federation of Eugenical Organizations president. Eugenical Research Association president. Co-founder and chairman of the overtly racist Galton Society. Tuskeegee experiments.
Sewall Wright Darwin Medalist 1980. American Eugenics Society member, advisory council. Eugenics Research Association member. American Society for Human Genetics member. Modern synthesis. Studied under Charles Davenport at Cold Spring Harbor. Also studied under another eugenist, W.E. Castle. Motoo Kimura (another Darwin Medalist) was one of Crow's/Wright's students.
Harry H. Laughlin Pro-Nazi. American Eugenics Society co-founder, president 1927-29. Eugenics Research Association. Eugenic Record Office. 2nd International Congress of Eugenics, executive committee [*]. Pioneer Fund. 1914 Letter from vice-consul G[eza?] von Hoffmann to Laughlin:
"The far reaching proposal of sterilizing one tenth of the population impressed me very much."
Harry Laughlin wrote a scientific analysis of Carrie Buck, concluding that Buck and her mother "belong to the shiftless, ignorant and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South... the evidence points strongly toward the feeblemindedness and moral delinquency of Carrie Buck being due, primarily to inheritance" (Chase, The Legacy of Malthus). You know the rest of the Carrie Buck story.
Edwin Grant Conklin Professor of biology, Princeton. American Eugenics Society member [1925, 1928-31, officer, director?, AES advisory council 1923-1926]. President, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 1936. Co-founder of the Galton Society. Author of Heredity and Environment in Development of Man (1925), Man, Real and Ideal (1943), and The Direction of Human Evolution (1921). The latter book is available for download in the Resources section.
Samuel J. Holmes American Eugenics Society, president 1938-1940. Professor of zoology at the University of California.
Paul Popenoe Pro-Nazi. American Eugenics Society member, director. Human Betterment Foundation. The German Sterilization Law (J Heredity, 1934): "Hitler... bases his hopes of a national regeneration solidly on the application of biological principles to human society."
Edward B. Poulton Darwin Medalist 1914. Eugenics Society, member, council, vice-president, fellow 1937. First International Eugenics Congress 1912, general committee. Eugenics Education Society.
Cyril D. Darlington Eugenics Society, fellow 1952, 1957, 1977, vice-president, 1960. Rationalist Press Association. [Elaborate RPA and the books they published.] The Evolution of Genetic Systems (1939). The Origins of Darwinism (Scientific American, 1959). Darwin's Place in History (1959). The Evolution of Man and Society (1969). "... people have different contributions to make to society as individuals and breeders. As individuals the unskilled workers... are not much use to us ... the old settled aristocracies and old unsettled gypsies of Europe were two more such useless groups. At the top and at the bottom of society waste materials accumulate." - C.D. Darlington, Race, Class, and Culture, 1970.
Margaret Sanger Eugenics Society, life fellow. American Eugenics Society. Founder of Planned Parenthood. Girlfriend of Havelock Ellis (eugenist) and H. G. Wells (eugenist). "Before eugenicists and others who are laboring for racial betterment can succeed, they must first clear the way for birth control. Like the advocates for birth control, the eugenicists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit." Sanger, Birth Control and Racial Betterment, 1919
Peter Medawar Nobel laureate. Eugenics Society member, fellow 1959, fellow 1977. Family Planning Association Ltd, director 1966-1972. Population Concern Campaign Committee 1986-1987. Endorsed John R. Baker's Race (Oxford Press, 1974).
Franz Kallmann Eugenics Society Fellow 1955, 1957. Founder of American Society of Human Genetics. Wrote The Genetics of Schizophrenia (1938). Founded American Journal of Human Genetics in [1948]. AAAS member. Eugenic psychiatry. Collaborated with Ernst Rudin. [Played a role in the Holocaust.] Twin studies. Hereditary schizophrenia. [Work used for Aktion T4.]
Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer Director, Third Reich Institute for Heredity, Biology, and Racial Purity. Colleague and supporter of Josef Mengele. American Eugenics Society member. American Society for Human Genetics member. War criminal, escaped prosecution. Twin experiments (implicated in many deaths of twins). Director, Human Heredity division, Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. Director of the Munster Institute of Human Genetics (succeeded by W. Lenz, son of F. Lenz, who influenced Hitler.) Author of Racial Biology of the Jews. (See below to download.) Eugenical News endorsed von Verschuer: "Dr. von Verschuer has successfully bridged the gap between medical practice and theoretic scientific research." (1936). Eugenists in Britain and America knew about Verschuer's background but did not expose him.
Ernst Mayr Darwin Medalist 1984. [American Eugenics Society member, director 1985, 1986.] Founder of the Society for the Study of Evolution.
Ernst Rudin Evolutionary psychologist. Succeeded Charles Davenport as president of the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations. Principal architect of Nazi race hygiene policies. Brother-in-law of Alfred Ploetz.
"The importance of racial hygiene has only become known in Germany to all intelligent Germans through the political work of Adolf Hitler, and it was only through him that our more than thirty-year-old dream has become a reality and racial hygiene principles have been translated into action."
Alfred Ploetz Nazi. Ernst Rudin's colleague. Munich Eugenic Society. Founded the German Society of Racial Hygene in 1905. Race hygiene was the continental term for eugenics. President, International Society for Race Hygiene (1916). Vice-president, Eugenics Society (1915-?). Galton knew Ploetz personally. From Pearson's Life and Letters of Galton, vol. 3, pg.429, we have some pleasant chit-chat...
July 4, 1910
My dear Karl Pearson, Thanks for both of your sendings, (1) the cutting from the Medical Times, which I return, (2) for the letter--how on earth it ever reached you is a mystery--from Eva Brigg's servant (and more than servant), who is now married and settled in New Zealand. Yesterday I got together to tea, Miss Elderton, Crackanthorpe and Ploetz... Ever affectionately yours, Francis Galton.
Eugen Fischer Director: Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (Berlin, 1927, financed by Rockefeller.) Hitler read Fischer's book Principles of Human Heredity and Race Hygiene. See below to download Fischer's Origin of the Hebrews.
Ernst Haeckel Darwin Medalist 1900. Possibly the most ideologically influential Darwinian in history. Eugenist. Monism. Monistenbund (1906), Monist Church [physicist Ernst Mach joined Haeckel's monist church.] Known to be a scientific fraud prior to 1890 [more coming soon]. "The mental life of savages rises little above that of the higher animals, especially the apes, with which they are geneologically connected... Their intelligence moves within the narrowest bounds, and one can no more (or less) speak of their reason than of that of the more intelligent animals…These lower races (such as the Veddahs or Australian negroes) are... nearer to mammals (apes or dogs) than to civilized Europeans; we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives." - Haeckel, 1906
Theodosius Dobzhansky The fruit-fly guy. American Eugenics Society director 1964-1973. Chairman of the board of directors 1969-1975. Marxist.
Richard C. Lewontin This man occupies a distinguished place in the annals of the absurd. [coming soon]. American Eugenics Society director. AAAS vice-president. Marxist.
Eugenics Society This is the British eugenic society, the daddy of all the others. Various name changes. Now known as the Galton Institute. Alive and well. Eugenics Education Society (1907) became the Eugenics Society (1926).

If there's one and only one thing you want to remember about this organization, it is this: in 1916, while Leonard Darwin was president, Alfred Ploetz was a vice-president. Serving on the board with Ploetz were Poulton (Darwin Medalist), Seward (Darwin Medalist), Starr Jordan, J.A. Thomson, and F.W. Mott.

International Eugenics Congresses 1912 London; Leonard Darwin president. Poulton, George Archdall Reid, Punnett, W.C.D Whetham.

1921, New York. H.F. Osborn (president, executive committee), Vernon Kellogg (general committee), Ida Grobe, Laughlin, George H. Sherwood, executive committee. Davenport, Grant.

1932 Davenport president.

The second IEC resolved to create a eugenics society in the USA. The American Eugenics Society was the result.

American Eugenics Society 28 state committees. Many name changes and aliases: International Commission on Eugenics Ad Interim Committee of the United States of America (c1921), Eugenics Committee of the United States of America (1922-1926), Eugenics Society of the United States of America (1922-1925), American Eugenics Society (1925-1926), American Eugenics Society Inc. (1926-1973), Society for the Study of Social Biology (1973-present.) [Advisory board members Conklin, Campbell, Eugen Fischer, Ernst Rudin, Falk Ruttke - AES journal 1936.]
Galton Society Founded in New York, 1918 by Madison Grant, Charles Davenport, E.G. Conklin, J.C. Merriam. "The most overtly racist of the American eugenics organisations". Nordic supremacy.
"Indiscriminate efforts to preserve babies among the lower classes often results in serious injury to the race... Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community."

"[sterilization could] be applied to an ever widening circle of social discards, beginning always with the criminal, the diseased and the insane, and extending gradually to types which may be called weaklings rather than defectives, and perhaps ultimately to worthless race types."

Both are quotes from Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race.

Madison Grant - chairman of the New York Zoological Society, trustee of the American Museum of Natural History, [c1910-20s].

There is also a British Galton Society.

Pioneer Fund Established in 1937. "Through our grants program, The Pioneer Fund has changed the face of the social and behavioral sciences by restoring the Darwinian-Galtonian perspective to the mainstream in traditional fields such as anthropology, psychology, and sociology..." Twin studies. The Pioneer fund gave financial support to the Institute for the Study of Man, which publishes Mankind Quarterly. Wickliffe Draper (American Eugenics Society member) was a financial supporter of the Pioneer Fund. Draper distinguished himself by promoting the notion that blacks should be sent back to Africa. While somewhat sympathetic to this view, Frederick Osborn thought that birth control would be a more realistic way to get rid of blacks. Osborn was president of the Pioneer fund in the postwar era.
American Society for Human Genetics (ASHG) This is a disturbing and powerful organization. They seem to be involved in the development of prenatal tests of little or no medical value. They are also a major player in human genetics research and the human genome project. Exactly what they do in that regard I do not know yet. The ASHG is especially disturbing if you examine its origins and membership. The ASHG was founded by Franz Kallmann. Members included a host of Nazi-connected biologists: von Verschuer, Nachtsheim, Lenz, [L. Alexander - controversial figure], [Curt Stern, Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, later Berkeley] etc. Many members of the ASHG were (and are) members of the American Eugenics Society. Wickliffe Draper and Fredrick Osborn were also members.
American Association for the Advancement of Science The AAAS.

Richard Lewontin, AAAS vice-president, American Eugenics Society director.
H.Bentley Glass, AAAS, American Eugenics Society.
Franz Kallmann, AAAS member, Eugenics Society member.
Edwin Conklin, AAAS president, American Eugenics Society member, officer.
Henry Fairfield Osborn, AAAS president, American Eugenics Society member.

[more to do.]

Eugenics Record Office (ERO) Charles Davenport. Funded by Carnegie.
Race Betterment Foundation Founded, 1911, Battle Creek Michigan. Financed by Kellogg cereal. Race betterment conferences, 1914, 1915, and 1928. Eugenics registry. Worked with ERO.
American Association for the Study of the Feeble-Minded Coming soon.
International Federation of Eugenics Organizations (IFEO) Davenport. Ploetz
Station for Experimental Evolution to do.

Get them before they disappear down the memory hole.

WinDjView Tiny program for reading djvus. Indispensible for researching scanned old books. If you want to download djvus from Internet Archive to read later, right-click on the 'djvu' link, copy the url, paste it into your browser, and replace '/stream/' with '/download/', and hit enter.

Against Darwinism

Design and Darwinism James Carmichael, 1880. A short, concise and penetrating essay, addressed to those who think that Darwinism is compatible with Christianity.
Now it is easy for some advocates of Darwinism to say that the law of Natural Selection, as defined by Mr. Darwin, is in some sense, a God-ordained law, and directed by Him in its general working... But Mr. Darwin tells us that the use of the words "plan of creation" or "unity of design" are marks of ignorance. In other words, there is no "plan of creation," there is no "unity of design" in the Darwinian hypothesis.
Is Evolution Proved? This is the legendary Shelton-Dewar debate, which you won't find in bookstores. Darwinians are really good at debating clergymen. Dewar is a zoologist. Laugh as Shelton gets his arse kicked for 350 pages.
Darwinian Fairytales David Stove, 1994/2006. This would make a very fine textbook for a course in Darwinism. If your faith in Darwinism is a little shaky to begin with, this book will reduce it to rubble and obliterate the vestiges. The book used to be available online: alas, no more. But, it has been reprinted and you can get it from Amazon. Worth clicking on the link just to see how customers describe the after-effects of reading it.
"Darwinians owe the public an apology. Not only do they owe the public an apology for their vicious slanders against mankind (as Stove describes the theory of selfishness) nor only for their outright lies, their waffling and hand-waving, and their recurrent use of mental gymnastics in their effort to maintain their pet theory, but also for the fact that their very theory (that there is a constant battle of each against all) is a "license to crime" (as Stove elegantly puts it) and has been responsible for the worst atrocities of the Twentieth Century."
So You Think You Are a Darwinian? David Stove. You can walk away from Darwinism after reading this.
Cave Man

Hard Man
Darwinism's Dilemma parts 1 and 2 by David Stove. It's hard to take evolutionary cave-man stories about grunting savages seriously after this savage thrashing of Darwinian anthropology.
Evolution and Adaptation Thomas Hunt Morgan, 1903. Natural Selection is a fairy-tale. So is Sexual Selection. And almost everything else Darwinians say about Selection. Hunt had the highest credentials you could hope for in an anti-Darwinian and his devastating criticisms have never been answered.
Scientific Sophisms Samuel Wainwright. A fine, well-written and at times hilariously entertaining dissection of the fairytales, materialistic psychobabble, inane philosophy, and pseudo-scientific rot peddled by famous Darwinians under the guise of science.
Organic Evolution The Duke of Argyll, 1898. Classic. What happens when you sweep biology clear of the obfuscations of materialistic philosophers? "Evolution" becomes growth, development, purpose, planning, and design.
We deceive ourselves when we think or talk, as the Darwinian school perpetually does, of organs being made or fitted by use. The idea is, strictly speaking, nonsense. They must have been made for use, not by use, because they have always existed in embryo before the use was possible, and, generally, there are many stages of growth before they can be put to use. It is, therefore, a fact -- not a theory -- that during all these stages the lines of development were strictly governed by the end to be attained -- that is to say, by the purpose to be fulfilled. pg.133

I cannot accept, or even respect, the opinion of men who, in describing the facts of Nature, and especially the growing adaptations of organic structures, use perpetually the language of intention as essential to the understanding of them, and then repudiate the implications of that language when they talk what they call science or philosophy. pg.134

The Duke was way ahead of his time.

Against Darwin
Darwinians say he was 'the finest man in England' and 'the Newton of biology'. But with the material in these books, you can build a pretty tight case that Darwin was the Madame Blavatsky of biology.

Luck or Cunning? Samuel Butler, 1886. [coming soon.]
Darwinianism James Stirling, 1894. For the moment we are concerned with pg.149-204. [coming soon]
Charles Darwin Darwin Medalist Edward Poulton, 1896. Inadvertently makes a damning case against Darwin. [coming soon]
Articles of the Darwin Faith F.O. Morris, 1882. This slim monograph (Pages 7-76) written by an obscure nobody is not what it seems. If you have already read Origin of Species and Descent of Man you may see that this is by no means a parody of Darwin, but rather a nutshell summary - and a perfectly accurate one - of Darwin's thought processes and his scientific method. In fact, this little book captures the Darwinian way of thinking, talking, and writing better than anything since. It is unfortunate that such a gem lay in obscurity for so long. Read this, then try re-reading Origin or Descent. See how long you can hold out before exploding into belly-laughs.

Rubber Science
A tiny sampling from the countless works of pseudoscience and philosophical gibberish published by Darwinians.

Evolution and Creation Herbert Hardwicke, 1887. Among these interesting essays about the evolution of life, man, religion, and Christianity, we have one, Evolution of Mind, that is a little bit special. We learn that living things are essentially no different from crystals and atoms: a typical monistic doctrine. Although written a long time ago, almost the whole of this essay is reproduced unconsciously in some form or another in the arguments of modern materialists and evolutionists. We also learn that babies are intellectually on par with molluscs, while the intellect of a five-month-old is comparable to a spider's. To appreciate the context of the author's ravings on religion, you'd have to peruse some issues of The Monist journal. This would be useful if you are interested in the history of the "pagan copycat" theory of Christianity.
"It is all very well for theologians and other biassed people to declare that animal intelligence has nothing in common with the reasoning powers of man; but let them honestly look at the facts as they are, thanks to the indefatigable energy and indomitable perseverance of lovers of science and truth, now presented to us. Candid observers cannot fail to notice that the difference between the intelligence of man and that of the lower animals is one only of degree, and not of kind... Have we not at the present day, among members of the human family itself, various degrees of intelligence, from the almost barren brains of the lowest races of savages to the brilliant mental achievements of a Newton or a Spencer?"

Hardwicke's credentials are similar to Sir Charles Bell's (who was not an evolutionist) and it is interesting to compare the work of these two men. Compare them by side and decide which is the work of a lunatic. Scroll down to get Bell's book, The Hand.

The Gospel According to Darwin This is not a joke. This is serious. Woods Hutchinson was a famous professor of medicine and popular author. He also wrote Evidences of Race Degeneration in the United States (1909) and The Importance of Negative Eugenics. (Am J Public Health, 1913.)
Evolution in Science, Philosophy, and Art. From the Brooklyn Ethical Association. You think that Darwinism is merely some biology hypothesis? Think again. History teaches otherwise. The second essay, on Ernst Haeckel, is astonishing. Read it.
"Thanks to evolution, the truths have come and are coming in their good time... The organic action of society is the foundation of all social and individual progress. Only by this mediator and savior, Humanity, is there any hope or salvation for the individual... The true Bible is no longer those old Hebrew and Greek documents... The Creed is not any number of Church Articles, but the conclusions of science... " pg.47-49.
The Principles of Heredity 1906, Sir George Archdall O'Brien Reid (Eugenics Society, First International Eugenics Congress, author of The Present Evolution of Man.) Considering that this is 1906, what could Reid possibly know about human heredity? Everything, of course. With natural selection, neo-Darwinism, and some philosophy under his belt, Reid confidently tackles every problem of heredity--even the imaginary ones, such as the 'enormous increase in insanity', 'knitting as an involuntary behavior', and the 'evolution of reason'. Why, it's so simple to explain 'reason' with the mighty tool of Darwinism, even a child could do it:
"Reason for its evolution and maintenace needs only one process of Natural Selection. Natural Selection implies elimination of the unfittest. To be an effective cause of evolution it must be stringent. Many stringent processes of elimination, each the cause of a high rate of mortality, necessarily cause the extinction, not the evolution, of the species subjected to them. There is, therefore, a natual limit to the number of instincts that may be evolved at ome time in the species. Nature, then, by evolving memory and its corollary reason, has discovered a way out of the difficulty; and, by supplying that which is a substitute for an infinite number of instincts, has enabled animals to adapt themselves to the increasing complexity of their environments, and thus to achieve a higher evolution." pg.239.
And there you have it, the origin of 'reason', explained without the use of science at all, but rather, by means of a fairytale, which is preferable and more weighty to the Darwinian mind anyway. The final chapters consist of--to put it frankly--mad ravings about ancient Rome, early Christianity as a form of insanity, monks and the Middle Ages, orthodoxy and heresy, the stupidity of Tibetans, outrage at the teaching of Latin during the Dark ages, the evils of scholasticism, civil wars, the Enlightenment, prohibition, and many other things that Darwinism is qualified to speak on.
The Antiquity of Man Sir Arthur Keith, 1915. You know about Piltdown Man, but I bet you've never seen this surprisingly detailed work of scientific fraud. As you read it, keep in mind that Keith is writing pure BS, though it may look and sound really scientific and impressive with all the elaborate drawings, measurements and terminology.
Men of the Old Stone Age Henry Fairfield Osborn, 1915. Darwin Medalist, The classic ape-man fairytale book. Piltdown man. Human skull + ape jaw = ape-man. Who can argue with that? Darwin's method of imaginative science. Frauds, fakes, deceptions.
The Earliest Englishman 1948. This, Sir Arthur Smith Woodward's 100+ page delusion about British ape-men, is a fine example of darwinian scientific rigor. Fig. 11 features the famous "cricket bat"... "we cannot guess for what purpose it was made or how it was used"
Evolution and Ethics 1946. Journey deep into the dreary and disturbed mind of Piltdown scientist Sir Arthur Keith. Preface by E. Hooton, American Eugenics Society member and author of Apes, Men, and Morons (1939). [Original link is broken, using google cache. Better download and save it before it vanishes down the memory hole.]
The Story of Creation E. Clodd, 1904. Don't let the title fool you, this is an evolution book. Like his friend Grant Allen, Edward Clodd was a popularizer of darwinism. Clodd was one of those writers who, by virtue of being a Darwinian, passed himself off as a scientific expert on every subject under the sun - from physics to theology, while at the same time being perfectly incompetent to expound on any of them. We have many such pop-sci Darwinians today. Clodd could be considered an early pioneer of their art.

On page 6 we already have the following idiocy: "Thought and emotion have their antecendents in molecular changes in the matter of the brain, and are completely within the range of causation and as capable of mechanical explanation as material phenomenon" to which Clodd immediately adds the self-contradiction "but of them no material qualities... can be predicated."

Chapter IX introduces the usual Malthusian postulates of Darwinism, of which postulates 4 and 5 are obviously false, though Clodd thinks that they are obviously true. Clodd throws in a pitch for eugenics too, on pages 168-169:

"When we see how successfull this choice of slight variations has brought about plants and animals best adapted to the service of man, we may desire the time when man shall so realise his duty to the race that the multiplication of the rickety, both physically and morally, will cease, and only men and women of the highest type repoduce their kind."
On page 185 we learn that "Darwin describes the Fuegians, who are among the lowest savages, as men 'whose very signs and expressions are less intelligible to us than those of domesticated animals...' Such races are somewhat nearer to the ape than to the European..." While on page 208, Clodd presents a fascinating Darwinian viewpoint on human education:
"As every one knows, it takes a soldier a long time to learn his drill--for instance, to put himself into the additude of 'attention' at the instant the word of command is heard; but after a time the sound of the word gives rise to the act, whether the soldier be thinking of it or not... a practical joker, who, seeing a discharged veteran carrying home his dinner, suddenly called out 'Attention!' whereupon the man instantly brought his hands down, and lost his mutton and potatoes in the gutter... The possibility of all education is based upon the existence of this power, which the nervous system possesses, of organising conscious actions into more or less unconscious, or reflex, operations."
On page 218 there begins a predictable (you knew it was coming) treatment of the "evolution of morals", where we learn "morals are relative, not absolute; there is no fixed standard of right and wrong..." and furthermore "that which man calls sin is shown to be more often due to his imperfect sense... of proportion... and to his lack of imagination." On page 227 Clodd informs us that "the duty of theology is to readjust itself to what science (ie., Clodd) proves to be true..."
The A B C of Evolution Joseph McCabe, 1920. Baby's big book of lies and poisoned science. What do Darwinians teach children? Examine this children's book and find out.

Did you know that planets evolve by natural selection? That evolution is "the greatest discovery the mind of man ever made"? Did you know that you can witness natural selection at work in any village by observing shopkeepers and the unemployed? Did you know that "every scientific authority in the world now believes that life was naturally evolved from the chemicals of the early earth"? Did you know that "Mendelism" is unacceptable? Did you know that flowers evolved from seaweed? Did you know that it is "absurd to imagine a vital force pushing evolution in this or that direction", even though the author makes hundreds of statements implying that there is one? Did you know that Archeopteryx is a flying reptile and "the link between the reptile and the bird"? Did you know that feathers and scales are the same thing - that feathers are merely scales that are "more feathery"? Did you know that "scientific men" are very modest in their claims? Did you know that "Australian blacks" take us back a long way toward orangutans? Did you know that the "central African natives take us still further" so that if you take "the ugliest and most stupid of these that you can find" and "imagine something far more ugly and stupid, then you have our human ancestor"? Did you know that the difference in brain power between monkeys and humans is highly exaggerated?

Your child needs to know all this, or he may grow up with gaps in his scientific knowledge.

The First Days of Man Kummer, 1920. Indoctrinate your toddler with "The Fish that got Stuck in the Mud", "The Ape that Walked Like a Man", and other tissues of deception calculated to screw up your child's brain. An interesting minor character in this book is the Deistic God. He doesn't actually make an appearance nor does he do anything. He is, after all, the Deistic God.
The Philosophical Foundations of Darwinism Ernst Mayr, 2001.
"[Darwin] was one of the great philosophers of all time, but his philosophy of biology differs so fundamentally from the philosophies based on logic..."
How much historical, grammatical and philosophical butchery can a Darwin Medalist cram into 8 pages? Mayr even manages to pack two biological blunders into one line: "...natural selection, producing abundant variation in every generation and always removing the inferior individuals...". Were you duped into believing that Mayr wrote something original? See the first essay in The Influence of Darwinism and Other Essays by John Dewey, 1910. John Dewey and the Decline of American Education.

The Zoo of Isms
Darwinians preaching Marxism and Atheism. Atheists preaching Marxism and Darwinism. Marxists preaching Darwinism and Atheism...

The Ethic of Freethought Darwin Medalist Karl Pearson, 1887. A depressing voyage into atheology, humanism, and Marxism, with occasional outbursts of embarrassing poetry about Goethe and Viennese sausage-grinders. By page 50 you may be reaching for the cyanide bottle.
Science Advances J.B.S. Haldane. A collection of articles from the early 1940's. Did you know that Lysenkoism was merely a kind of professional dispute between scientists, the sort that goes on in Britian and the USA? That's what Darwin Medalist Haldane says in his defense of Trofym Lysenko beginning on page 220. Haldane wrote this right around or after Vavilov, whom he knew personally, died in the Gulag. Imagine that, the Modern Synthesis was co-founded by a shill for Lysenko. He also mentions on pg.224 that Vavilov was alledged to have had anti-Darwinian views. Isn't that the opposite of the story we are usually told?

Other parts worth reading: the essay on Marx (page 14) and the essay on Euthanasia (page 176).

Evolution: Social and Organic Lewis, 1908. If you didn't already know that Lewis was a popular Marxist kook of that era, you'd think he was just another Darwinian of that era.
Marxism and Darwinism Anton Pannekoek, 1919.

Work through these books and earn yourself an advanced degree in Haeckelology!

Freedom of Science and the Modern State Rudolf Virchow, 1878. The teaching of biological speculations as if they are fact is a menace to the freedom of science and to the German state. Prophetic.
Haeckel, His Life and Work Wilhem Bolsche labours manfully to leave us with the impression that, with respect to every conceivable human virtue, Darwin Medalist Ernst Haeckel was the greatest man in recorded history. In this sense the book is reminiscent of Grant Allen's biography of Darwin. Anyway, it's an interesting read. Especially the parts having to do with Haeckel's conflict with Virchow. It seems that Virchow was right, Haeckel was a menace to society - Bolsche later became a full-blown Nazi. What was Haeckel's greatest contribution to mankind? According to Bolsche it was the exclusion of God from all spheres of human thought. [Translated and extended by McCabe, who himself merits further investigation.]
The World War:
Who is to Blame?
1915. Concerns German warmongering agit-prop. Haeckel is the star of the first part of the book. Does that surprise you?
The Last Link Ernst Haeckel, 1898. If you like weird bedtime stories in the genre of William Hope Hodgeson, Olaf Stapledon, and H.P Lovecraft, you'll like this short essay about the origins of Man. It's even shorter if you cut out the lengthy character assassination of Haeckel's personal devil, Rudolf Virchow. Pages 75-76 give some early insight concerning the intra-Darwinian pseudoscientific squabblings that would grow to magnificent proportions, infecting genetics, sociobiology, etc. (pro/anti-Mendel, pro/anti-Weismann, Lysenkoism, Nature vs. Nurture, etc.)


Eugenics Archive Image Archive on the American Eugenics Movement.
ES list

AES list

Partial membership lists of the Eugenics Society and the American Eugenics Society. A good place to begin your own research.
Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Galton Karl Pearson, 1930. This is volume 3. From Pages 217 to 438 we have a portrait of eugenics in the latter part of Galton's life, through letters. At first glance this tome seems impossibly dense and dreary (it is, after all, written by Pearson), but it is really too useful a resource to be without. By no means is it devoid of amusing or absorbing material, in fact, there is much of it: the birth of the Eugenics Lab, Biometrika, and the Eugenics Education Society, rambling defenses of Biometry against the attacks of the Mendelian science-deniers, Dr Saleeby's eugenical melt-down, sketches of Galton's awful utopian novel, the intra-eugenical warfare about statistics and alcoholism, how Galton took up dope-smoking as a treatment for asthma, and so on.
Essays in Eugenics Francis Galton, Eugenics Education Society, 1909. When Darwin related the fairytale about the bird with the 1/100th-inch variation in beak length, how did he know that this variation would be inheritable? How did Darwin know that 'the progress of the United States' and 'the character of the american people' are inherited traits? He said so, therefore it is true. That's how. How did Galton know that pauperism, criminality and human worth are inherited? The Darwinian logic about heredity runs like this: if you are a Darwinian and you say X is an inheritable trait, then it is so. This way of thinking persists to this day.

Galton introduces us to a new 'science', Biometry, which proves whatever he wants to prove using statistical mumbo-jumbo. Never mind that Biometry turned out to be nonsense and along with it Galton's whole edifice of hereditary science. Never mind all that, it's time to enshrine his speculations as truth in the unsuspecting public's mind...

"The aims of Eugenics... 5. Persistence in setting forth the national importance of Eugenics. There are three stages to be passed through. Firstly it must be made familiar as an academic question, until its exact importance has been understood and accepted as fact; Secondly it must be recognised as a subject whose practical development deserves serious consideration; and Thirdly it must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion."
The above is a good example of what Rudolf Virchow warned us about. But perhaps the funniest part is the sudden pitch for money on page 30:
"It being far more humane to prevent suffering than to alleviate it after it has occurred, why will not charitably disposed persons leave substantial sums of money to the furtherance of Eugenic Study and practice, and of popularising the result? The money would be well bestowed." "I learn on high legal authority that the form of bequest which would be most appropriate in the present circumstances... is "I bequeath to my trusted friend A.B., ..., absolutely, the sum of $... in the hope and confidence that he will apply the same in furtherance of Eugenic Study and practice" &c.
Don't miss the bit about 'Jehad' against the enemies of eugenics (on pg.99). Also mentioned: Pearson, Mott, Weldon, Westermarck, Saleeby, Edgar Schuster, Biometry, Biometrika, Eugenics Lab.
Heredity, Eugenics and Insanity Mott, 1912. Highly disturbing. Important historical document. It was presented at the First International Eugenics Congress, the one presided by Leonard Darwin. Mott served on the board of the Eugenics Society with Alfred Ploetz. Eugenic psychiatry. "Heredity is the most potent cause of insanity."
Nazi Doctors "the solution of the problem of the mentally ill becomes easy if one eliminates these people." Everything you wanted to know about scary Nazi psychiatrists. See also Aktion T4.
Eugenics, The Science of Human Improvement Charles Davenport, 1910. Part II is a report on the American Breeder's Association Committee of Eugenics, 1909. Committee members (some familiar names):

Chairman: David Starr Jordan.
Alexander Graham Bell, Luther Burbank, W.E. Castle, C.R. Henderson, A. Hrdlicka, Vernon L. Kellog, Adolf Meyer, J. Arthur Thomson, W.L. Tower, H.J. Webber, C.E. Woodruff, Frederick A. Woods, Charles B. Davenport (secretary).

W.E. Castle: genetics, Darwinism (see Sewall Wright). J. Arthur Thomson: Darwinism. Vernon Kellog: Darwinism.

Darwinism and Race Progress John B. Haycraft, 1900.
The Direction of Human Evolution Edwin Grant Conklin, 1921. The book begins with a plate photo of something you've seen many times, going back to your early childhood: the McGregor frauds. In the preface, Conklin's tone is defiant:
"Many persons believe that our civilization, like other civilizations of the past, is showing signs of degeneration and decay, that throughout the world the less intelligent and more selfish elements of society are coming to control government, industry, and education, while the best elements are dying out or are losing control. Others look forward with alarm to increasing conflicts between races of mankind, to a "Rising Tide of Color in the Struggle for World Supremacy", and to the elimination of the finest types in "The Passing of the Great Race." Chesterton says that the World War put a stop to all out talk about human evolution, but this is certainly not true..."
From pages 45-46:
"After all, in this struggle of races and people, there is reason to believe that success will ultimately rest with the intelligent, the capable, and the ethical, and the attention of all who love their race should be centered upon raising the standards of heredity... I see no reason to suppose that in these respects the white races will fall below the colored ones. The greatest danger which faces any superior race is that of amalgamation with inferior stock and the consequent lowering of inherited capabilities."
This demented book by an influential Princeton biology professor is chock full of good stuff. True to his Darwinian mold of mind, Conklin cannot stay away from blathering about religion and philosophy either. Pages 239-240:
"The religion of evolution holds forth no hope of a perfect millenium in which all evil shall be eliminated and all struggle shall cease... There can be no progress of any kind without struggle... The struggle against evil in general is thus a condition of social progress... Evolution thus offers a rational solution of the great problem of evil. It has taught us that there is all about us a great and world-wide struggle for existence; that inaction and satiety end in degeneration and that advance can be purchased only by struggle, suffering, and death. "
The Trend of the Race 1921. Samuel J. Holmes, zoology professor at the University of California, president of the American Eugenics Society 1938-1940. Cites Madison Grant's Passing of the Great Race and Popenoe's Applied Eugenics, as references in the first chapter. Chapters 7, 8, 12 and 13 cite works by Alfred Ploetz as references. Chapter 11 cites works by Eugen Fischer. Chapter 16 cites Haycraft, Madison Grant, Alfred Ploetz, and Woods Hutchinson (author of The Gospel According to Darwin.) This book provides a large mass of names, books, references, and other investigative leads. Download it and get to work!

In Holmes's table of human hereditary traits (page 18), "superior mentality" and "inferior mentality" are listed as dominant and recessive, respectively. Pages 37-38 showcases remarkable aberrations of scientific thought [to do]. Jukes and Kallikaks. Chapter 14, "The Selective Function of Religion" opens with the frightening quote:

"If we are right in believing that the religious instinct is the only force strong enough to influence mankind, consciously or unconsciously, to consider the race as distinct from the individual, it is clear that the character of the national religion, the correctness of the biological principles its teaching embodies, the devotion, fidelity and number of its adherents, will be the real criterion of success or failure"
It is from chapter 9 of Heredity and Society by William Dampier Whetham and Catherine Whetham, 1912. From chapter 9:
"a "theory of power" which takes account of modern biological knowledge in a strenuous effort to imporve the physical, mental and moral state of the race both by environment and heredity, and by their interaction one on the other, seems to us a good basis for political endeavour."
Ponder the meaning of these quotes with respect to, say, Naziism, and keep in mind that Galton wanted a national religion based on eugenics, and so did Julian Huxley and many others.
Human Genetics Samuel J. Holmes, 1936. [To do.]
Racial Biology of the Jews Otmar von Verschuer.
Racial Origin of the Hebrews Eugen Fischer, 1938. A most interesting essay about the evolution of the Jews. Fischer talks about selection and adaptation and so on, even throwing in Peking Man, Java Man, and much more. His appeals to genetics are in typical Darwinian style reminiscent of today's evolutionary psychologists:
"We have conclusive proof that mental and psychological characteristics are just as much based on hereditary predispositions as are physical characteristics, normal and pathological ones."
German Racial Policy Eugenical News, 1936. C.G. Campbell (Eugenics Society fellow, 1937; American Eugenics Society; Eugenics Research Association honorary president) "It is unfortunate that the anti-Nazi propaganda with which all countries have been flooded has gone far to obscure the correct understanding of the German racial policy."
Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics Horatio Newman, 1921. Textbook on evolutionary biology. This is a good book to have in your library. It is a broad collection of stuff from many authors on many topics. It presents a thorough overview of the Darwinism scene at that time. In many ways it's better, more complete, clearer, and far more interesting than some modern books on evolution. From the preface:
"This book has been prepared to meet a specific demand, long felt here and elsewhere, for an account of the various phases of evolutionary biology condensed within the scope of one volume of moderate size. The present writer has now for sixteen successive years presented in lecture form to large classes of students the subjects of evolution, genetics, and eugenics... It is believed that the present book will furnish adequate reading material for a major or a semester course in evolutionary biology."
No true Darwinian can restrain himself from blathering about religion, and Newman is a true Darwinian. Again, from the preface:
"It is very unfortunate, but none the less true, that even in these scientific days, the subject of evolution has a bad name in many communities and in many educational institutions with religious affiliations. The mistake is made of supposing that evolution and religion are diametrically opposed. The present writer has been at some pains to make it clear that evolution and religion are strictly compatible. We teachers of evolution in the colleges have no sinister designs upon the religious faith of our students."
What "pains" is he referring to? His own comments, which appear in various places, and the essay by Joseph Le Conte (page 46) The Relation of Evolution to Materialism, taken from Le Conte's evolution book which argues that yes, indeed, religion and evolution are compatible, as long as your religion is Monism. [ click here to read exerpt]

In the preface, Newman has high praise for some vicious eugenists: "The clearness and scientific accuracy of Conklin, Saleeby, Guyer, Walter... Popenoe, Johnson... are familiar to American biologists." On page 90 we have the good old McGregor frauds. Pages 149-151: fake science comparing human babies to apes and fairytales about the 'prehensile simian toes' of human babies. Page 159 - suspicious drawings of human and ape arms by Romanes. Page 164 &c, Haeckelology, then a scathing critique of Haeckelology which ends in the baffling conclusion that Haeckelology is nevertheless "one of the strongest arguments in support of the evolutionary doctrine." Newman makes some equally baffling comments about Piltdown Man on pages 92-93.

On page 219 there begins a very interesting treatment of natural selection, with a summary of the postulates of Darwinism by Vernon Kellog on page 245. The postulates are presented anew by Nutting on page 259. From this we learn a curious truth of history: the Darwinism of Ernst Mayr (2001) is no different from Moody's Darwinism circa 1960, which is no different from Kellog's and Nutting's Darwinism circa 1920, which is no different from Clodd's Darwinism circa 1900, and so on. Pages 365-375: introduction to the pseudoscience of Biometry. Pages 459-onward: eugenics, with a nasty essay by Herbert Walter. On page 483, while discussing human judgement, Walter makes the following error of judgement:

" is unlikely that the world will ever see another great religious inquisition, or that in applying to man the newly found laws of heredity there will ever be undertaken an equally deplorable eugenic inquisition."
That essay was taken from Walter's poisoned-science textbook Genetics. Walter was a member of the American Eugenics Society. He assisted Hunter with his Civic Biology textbook. Walter is on Wikipedia's list of "evolutionary biologists".
Applied Eugenics Popular american textbook by Paul Popenoe and Roswell Johnson (secretary and treasurer, American Eugenics Society, president 1927-1929.) Essential reading. Covers the usual topics: natural selection, feeble-mindedness, the Jukes and Kallikaks, hillbillies, racial segregation, etc. Read this to understand George Hunter's darwinism chapters in A Civic Biology.
The Kallikak Family Henry H. Goddard (later, American Eugenics Society, Eugenics Research Association). Goddard coined the term moron. This bogus 1912 study of hereditary disfunctionality deeply influenced american pop culture. You will see it referred to uncritically countless times by other darwinians. "Democracy means that the people rule by selecting the wisest, most intelligent and most human to tell them what to do to be happy." - H.H. Goddard.
On Catholicism Eugenics Review, 1931. Eugenists contra Pope Pius XI. Makes the usual "science-denier" accusations:
"The Pope delivers an uncompromising ultimatum not only to eugenists, but to all who seek to order their own affairs in the light of science... It is a defiant return to medievalism... As eugenists, our interest lies in the practical effect of [Catholic] doctrines; and this Encyclical deals the final blow to our hopes of coming to an agreement with them... the Pope here issues an unqualified condemnation of both sterilization and the prohibition of marriage... The Encyclical [is] a return to the Middle Ages. It's medievalism is carried so far as to ignore all anthropology, all history not contained in Genesis, and to attack not only the practice of eugenics, but also the underlying biological bases. Not only is current biology specifically attacked, but an onslaught is made on the whole texture of science and the liberty of thought..." blah blah
Some of Julian Huxley's comments about the Pope's encyclical were published by Time Magazine:
"...we shall tell the man who can't provide for himself and his family that he cannot have State aid unless he agrees not to have any more children. If he refuses, State aid shall also be refused him or else he shall be locked up. ... In our society a man with a small family finds that he gets ahead quicker and that his smaller number of children can have greater advantages. All of this may seem very undemocratic, but heredity and biology are very undemocratic."
The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection R. A. Fisher, 1930. Could just as well be put in the Rubber Science category. [Coming soon.]
Biology in Everyday Life John R. Baker, 1933. Sociobiological and eugenical essays by Baker, originally broadcast by the BBC in 1933. Very direct, mendacious, and offensive.
"There is a good deal of evidence that the feeble-minded are increasing in numbers in this country. They are careless of the consequences of their actions, and they reproduce rapidly. They appear to be a real danger to the State." pg.80
The Pivot of Civilization Margaret Sanger, 1922. A mixture of eugenics, Marxism, feeblemindophobia, and feminism, combined with hatred of children, hatred of benevolence, of humanitarianism, of altruism, and, of course, hatred of the Catholic Church. Read chapter 5, "The Cruelty of Charity." A true child of the Enlightenment wouldn't be happy without regicide, so Lord Dawson makes guest appearances too. With preface by H.G. Wells. This is a must read. Click here for Gutenberg HTML version.

The Scopes Trial

A Civic Biology What was the Scopes trial really about? It was about this biology textbook. Read the darwinism sections for yourself. Shocked, you say? Do you disapprove? You must be a science-denier! In the intro, Hunter says he is grateful to the fine scientific minds who helped him... "sincere thanks" to Herbert E. Walter, a rabid eugenist, for his assistance.

Short summary: Pg.193-196: horse evolution; monkeys and men; Mongolians, Negroes, and the "highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." Pg.253-265: natural selection, heredity, and Darwin; dog breeding, eugenics, hereditary feeble-mindedness, Jukes and Kallikaks, Charles Davenport, eugenic psychiatry, useless eaters...

"Hundreds of families such as those described above exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families are very severe. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money... They take from society, but give nothing in return. They are true parasites. If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading..." - pg.263
Pg.270-on: man is a machine, etc.
The Menace of Darwinism 1921, William Jennings Bryan. If you download this prophetic little book, don't leave it lying around unencrypted. That could cost you your job, your friends, or worse. If you are a teacher and you want to experience martyrdom, assign this as a reading for your class. William Jennings Bryan was the prosecutor for the Scopes trial.
"[Darwinism] teaches that Christianity impairs the race physically. That was the first implication at which I revolted. It led me to review the doctrine and reject it entirely... The language which I have quoted proves that Darwinism is directly antagonistic to Christianity... and of the care it bestows on the weak and the helpless."
Bryan calls it like it is and pulls no punches.
"Theistic evolution may be described as an anesthetic which deadens the pain while the patient's religion is being gradually removed..."

"...atheists and agnostics are not only claiming but enjoying higher rights and greater privileges in this land than Christians; that is, they are able to propagate their views at public expense while Christianity must be taught at the expense of Christians. Whenever Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, desire to present to students their interpretation of Christianity they build their own colleges with their own money, employ their own teachers, and give to the school a name which indicates what is being taught... The question in dispute is whether atheists and agnostics have a right to teach irreligion in public schools--whether teachers drawing salaries from the public treasury shall be permitted to undermine belief in God, the Bible, and Christ by teaching not scientific truth but unproven and unsupported guesses which cannot be true unless the Bible is false."

"If the Bible cannot be defended in these schools it should not be attacked, either directly of under the guise of philosophy or science. The neutrality which we now have is often but a sham; it carefully excludes the Christian religion but permits the use of the schoolrooms for the destruction of faith and for the teaching of materialistic doctrines."

But there are simply too many fantastic quotes which could be presented here. Best read the whole thing - but be careful!


Popper and After Have you noticed that Darwinians have their own private philosophy of science? You know: science can't prove anything, nothing is true, etc. A very handy philosophy to have if you don't intend to prove anything. There's actually a word for it: Irrationalism. David Stove takes a meat-cleaver to four modern Irrationalists.
On the Use of Philosophy Jacques Maritain, 1961. What do you think when you hear the word philosophy? Does it conjure an image of some intellectual fart with little round John Lennon-glasses, sucking on a reefer and mumbling "capitalism, man, it's the patriarchy, cuz there ain't no truth, cuz like, 1+1 equals 2 ain't even true cuz in binary arithmetic 1+1 equals 10..."? This sort of philosopher is incompetent but not irrelevant. Noxious philosophers, like Hume, Bertrand Russell, Spencer, Dewey, Sartre, Hegel, Marx, etc, had tremendous influence on generations. How can people defend themselves from absorbing the specious reasoning of bad philosophers? In three short essays, Jacques Maritain explains the value of philosophy.
The Hand Sir Charles Bell, 1834. Written before Origin of Species. This is a teleological study of the hand and senses in man and other animals. This classic deserves to be more widely known; it is hard to put down.
Seeking assistance from the works of distinguished naturalists, we do not always find that disposition of mind prevail, which we should be apt to suppose a necessary result of their peculiar studies. We do not discover that combination of genius with sound sense, which distinguished Cuvier, and the great men of science. It is, above all, surprising with what perverse ingenuity men seek to obscure the conception of a Divine Author, an intelligent, designing, and benevolent Being rather clinging to the greatest absurdities, or interposing the cold and inanimate influence of the mere "elements," in a manner to extinguish all feeling of dependance in our minds, and all emotions of gratitude...

But my chief object is to show that the most perfect proof of power and of design, is to be found in this, that the perceptions or ideas arising in the mind, are in correspondence with the qualities of external matter; and that, although the manner in which the object presented to the outward sense and the idea of it are connected, must ever be beyond our comprehension, they are, notwithstanding, indissolubly united; and when the object is so presented to us by the senses, it is attended with the conviction of its real existence a conviction, independent of reason and to be regarded as a first law of our nature.

Principles of Natural Theology George Hayward Joyce S.J., 1923. The classic theory of final ends, Design, and Creation.
Challenge of the Universe Charles J. Shebbeare, 1918. Natural theology and Design in the classic sense. Not as rigorous as Joyce, but nevertheless full of fascinating material. Shebbeare discusses the magnificent problem of beauty in nature, something which should not exist at all if naturalism or Darwinism were true.
Mediaeval Philosophy Maurice de Wulf, 1922. Not only is this a readable account of medieval thought for those who are interested in the Middle ages, this book is also a great introduction to the common-sense philosophy of the Aristotle-Aquinas tradition. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions and methods of Scholastic philosophy, you will have to admit it is a spectacular edifice which has withstood the test of time. And, that a 19th-century system of thought, like that of, say, Spencer or Pearson, seems in comparison more like a cheese pizza dropped face-down on the floor.

Thoughts and Comments
Amid the riotous din of Darwin debates, many interesting issues and questions never make it to the surface. Here are some new perspectives on old (and not so old) topics.

Inbred Science

Francis Galton was Charles Darwin's cousin. He coined the word Eugenics in 1883. He founded the biometric approach to heredity, and to further this theory, Karl Pearson established the influential Biometrika journal in 1901. Well, perhaps the fact that Pearson's papers were getting rejected elsewhere had something to do with it too. Which is why Pearson installed good right-hand men like Weldon, Davenport, and himself as editors. Peer review, you see. Galton's most important legacy was the Eugenics Education Society, later re-named simply the Eugenics Society. It still exists today, though under a different name. By the way, do you like the k in Biometrika? Perhaps it was a habit of Karl Pearson, to substitute k's for c's everywhere. Biometrika delved deeply into that peculiar field of study popularized by Charles Darwin, which holds for Darwinians an irresistibly gripping fascination. That is, the meticulous qualitative and quantitative comparison of Black people with apes.

By this I do not just mean such things as this eugenic collection, or this passage...

"...anatomically there is a greater difference between the lowest type of monkey and the highest type of ape than there is between the highest type of ape and the lowest savage..." - Hunter, Civic Biology, pg.195

...but also the more elaborate line of work undertaken by more thorough, more able, and more persistent Darwinians. The kind of work which leaves no stone unturned, where all dimensions of african and australian 'savages': moral, physical, anatomical, cultural, and behavioral, are compared to those of gorillas and birds.

It would not be hard to fill an entire book with examples of this sort of thing, the meticulous comparison of blacks and savages to monkeys and birds. Happily, I need not do so, for Darwin himself filled an entire book with such things: Descent of Man.

One of Darwin's many points of Man-Ape comparison concerned the anatomy of the foot. He suggested that "savages" have vestiges of the opposable toe found in apes. He wrote: "With some savages, however, the foot has not altogether lost its prehensile power, as shown by their manner of climbing trees, and of using them (sic) in other ways." Which, if anything, serves to prove that Charles knew little about anatomy. But this man-monkey opposable toe myth dies hard. See for example... this image. Note carefully the separated big toe of the "Negro fetus." It is intended to mislead you into thinking that blacks retain, in vestigial form, a characteristic trait of apes which whites do not have. This is a critical point, because the opposable toe is considered to be one of the defining anatomical differences between apes and man. You can find these sort of "opposable toe" illustrations in many Darwinian books, if you bother to look. Which you should, by the way. Just recently I ran into a fairytale, buried deep in some Darwinian book, about a sub-tribe of the Chinese who paddle boats with their vestigial opposable big toes. I wonder what fairytale these Darwinians would concoct about the odd feet of Cambodian rice-paddy workers, if they were made aware of it.

Early Darwinians laboured in the infancy of this pathological obsession without the benefit of more modern methods developed by Galton and Pearson. Here, for example, is Richard Owen, fiddling with millet seed and foolishly indulging an audience of Darwinians in their favorite vice...

A ready way to obtain the capacity of the cranial cavity is to fill that cavity with millet-seed, to weigh the skull, and then deduct the weight of the empty skull from the filled one. The range of capacity in the male Gorilla was thus found to be from 17 oz. 3 dr. to 19 oz. 5 dr. whilst in the male Negroes' skulls the range of capacity was from 38 oz. 5 dr. to 51 oz. 6 dr. Tiedemann records an Ethiopian skull with a capacity of 54 oz. 2 dr. 33 gr. troy; the highest capacity in an European skull being 57 oz. 3 dr. .56 gr. troy. The weight of a Negro's brain has been found to be from 3 1b. I oz. to 3 lb. 9 oz. 4 dr. troy; that of a full-grown male Gorilla may be estimated at from 10 oz. to 12 oz. troy. In regard to the principal parts of the brain, the difference of size of the medulla oblongata is rather in favour of the Gorilla: the cerebellum of the Gorilla is smaller, the cerebrum is much smaller than in the Negro. [The Gorilla and the Negro, 1861]
Important as these facts must be to those who never cease to enjoy hearing about them and meditating upon them, Owen was being a fool, as is anyone who involves himself in serious and detailed technical disputes with Darwinians, be they about computer algorithms, monkeys and africans, religion, philosophy, the evolution of sea-cucumbers, morality, nature-versus-nurture, or any of the countless other things Darwinians like to rave about. You see, Owen, who was not a Darwinian, was actually arguing that blacks are not apes. But think about it, dear reader. Why should anyone waste their time with laborious skull-analyses and millet-seed measurement in order to refute a Darwinian who says that blacks are a kind of ape? Alas, this is the nature of Darwinian controversies. Every one of them is pointless, time and money-wasting, life-wasting, and, eventually, destructive. I can list a large number of such mindless, burdensome and destructive controversies imposed upon the world by Darwinians. In fact I will, in a later essay.

There is a curious lesson of history in this. Owen defended what needed no defence in the first place: that humans are not apes and therefore black people are not gorillas either. We have repaid Owen for this indiscretion by remembering him as an intellectual fraud, a plagiarist, a liar, and an all-round nasty fellow. Which is how Darwin and his friends wanted Owen to be remembered. We have repaid Darwin and his friends, who taught us that blacks and savages are closer to the gorilla end of the totem-pole, by remembering them as knights in the service of truth and defenders of science against blind religious bigotry. Darwin in particular we remember as the gentlest and ablest of the lot, and the finest englishman in England on top of it. Think about that, dear reader.

Mivart's fate was curiously similar to Owen's. Mivart being another fellow who foolishly indulged Darwinians in one of their favorite vices--arguing about religion. Perhaps it's unfair to call them fools, drawing as we can from 150 years of hindsight. How were they supposed to know they were dealing with something more closely analogous to Marxism or shamanism than biological science?

Enough of that digression. In Biometrika you can see the science developing to a high art. Complex formulae are derived for the calculation of Negro skull volume, intricate regression analyses of skin coloration are discussed, with papers like A Study of the Negro Skull with Special Reference to the Congo and Gaboon Crania appearing, and so on. I am sure that Pearson et al. discovered many crucial Darwinian facts and evidence for yet more Darwinian truths about primitive peoples, such as the one reported by Julian Huxley in one of his essays--that evidence now exists showing that Eskimoes have 'mating heat' like cats.

It should be pointed out that both Pearson and Galton won the Darwin Medal for "work of acknowledged distinction in the broad area of biology in which Charles Darwin worked." It should also be pointed out that Karl Pearson was both a eugenicist and a racist, albeit a scientific one. He held the first Chair of Eugenics at the University of London.

Galton was honorary president of the Eugenics society until he was succeeded by Leonard Darwin, son of Charles Darwin. Leonard Darwin was chairman of The Eugenics Society from 1911 to 1928, when he became honorary president. The Eugenics Society spawned many other societies in many nations. It helped create them, and encouraged them in various ways. Keeping track of them all involves considerable investigation. There are family planning bureaus, human betterment societies, racial hygiene organizations, human heredity foundations, etc. There was even an American Institute for the Study of the Feeble-Minded -- though it should have properly been called the American Institute for the Extermination of the Feeble-Minded. By 1912, when the First International Eugenic Congress was held, eugenics was well on its way as a world-wide movement. Alfred Ploetz and Ernst Rudin collaborated with eugenicists in both Britain and America. They were proponents of the notion that the weak, sick, old, or otherwise undesirable or defective, can be cured with a painless lethal injection.

To manage statistical and hereditary records, the Eugenic Records Office was established by Charles Davenport at Cold Spring Harbour laboratory. Davenport also ran the Station for Experimental Evolution. He was president of the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations (IFEO), and was succeeded by Ernst Rudin. Davenport was probably the most famous american biologist of his time. There is some suspicion that Davenport was involved in the notorious Tuskegee Experiments. Well, ok, that was an understatement tossed in jest. The ERO was a major contributor to eugenics in Germany. If you got this far, dear reader, you should have already read one of Davenport's reports to Leonard Darwin concerning the progress of eugenics in Germany, because it's at the top of this web-page.

When you consider how profoundly rooted the world-wide eugenics movement was in the fertile soil of the Darwin family, it is no surprise that the Darwin family should find itself exemplified as the model of good eugenic breeding, as they were in this poster: Galton-Darwin-Wedgwood Family. If I were an adherent of the Darwinian view of heredity and variation, I would be tempted to conclude, after looking at that chart, that the eugenical cast of mind is hereditary, just like imbecility, feeble-mindedness, prostitution, and chronic unemployment. But I'm not.

Following the thread of history, we see that Davenport served on the board of directors of the American Eugenics Society, along with Harry Laughlin and a fellow named Paul Popenoe. Popenoe wrote a popular textbook called Applied Eugenics. In order to understand the eugenics movement in america, you must read this book.

Popenoe presents the usual bleak eugenical picture of a catastrophic future: humanity's germ-plasm is threatened by the procreation of imbeciles, idiots, morons, cripples, the feeble-minded, prostitutes, alcoholics, and shiftless bums, who must be sterilized or segragated to avert corruption of the nation's genetic material. In chapter 6 he discusses the theory of evolution and natural selection. It is well worth reading this chapter because you will see how his Darwinian preconceptions lead him into all sorts of gross errors about human heredity. Just what these Darwinian preconceptions and gross errors are, I will discuss in the next essay.

Popenoe distills the central thesis into the form of a question...

To-day, how is it? The inefficients, the wastrels, the physical, mental, and moral cripples are carefully preserved at public expense. The criminal is turned out on parole after a few years, to become the father of a family. The insane is discharged as "cured," again to take up the duties of citizenship. The feeble-minded child is painfully "educated," often at the expense of his normal brother or sister. In short, the undesirables of the race, with whom the bloody hand of natural selection would have made short work early in life, are now nursed along to old age.
In chapter 8, we get to the best part, the hillbillies. Along with the serious threat posed by the feeble-minded to the nation's germ-plasm, Popenoe introduces us to a new biological terror: the hillbillies of Pennsylvania and Ohio. "Sore-Eyed Hank" (figure 27) ought to be sterilized so he can't reproduce his kind, he says. Historically speaking, Darwinian contempt for hillbillies is comparable to their contempt for clerical celibacy, a contempt also well-documented. But for whatever the reason, Darwinians spent considerable time and effort grinding out studies and books blasting "dysgenic" families. For example, Goddard's Kallikak Family, and the famous Juke family studies, begun by Richard Dugdale in 1877 and then continued by Estabrook at the Eugenics Record Office. Estabrook also wrote Mongrel Virginians (1926), which was described in a review by Dr. Abraham Myerson as "a really absurd and useless book". Absurd, yes, but of course not useless to Darwinians, who appealed, liberally and frequently to Estabrook, Dugdale, and Goddard without the slightest twinge of skepticism. Why, this seminal scientific material even made its way into Hunter's Civic Biology--the Scopes Trial textbook. Jukes, Nams, Kallikaks, Zeros, Dacks, Ishmaels, Sixties, Hickories, Hill Folk, Piney Folk... most of that, and the studies of other "dysgenic" families turned out to be fraudulent or worthless. But they made the headlines. And they are firmly fixed in popular culture. Think X-Files, Deliverance, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and all that.

Popenoe elaborates on positive methods to solve these difficult eugenical problems: sterilization and segregation. He gives helpful suggestions about putting "moron boys" and "idiot boys" to hard labor. Then, in chapter 14, called The Color Line, he comes to the issue of blacks, as you knew he would, sooner or later. Popenoe writes...

The social heritage of the Negro has been described at great length and often with little regard for fact, by hundreds of writers. Only a glance can be given the subject here, but it may profitably be asked what the Negro did when he was left to himself in Africa. If the number of original contributions which it has made to the world's civilization is any fair criterion of the relative value of a race, then the Negro race must be placed very near zero on the scale. As a result of the careful measurement of many skulls, Karl Pearson has come to the following conclusions: "There is for the best ascertainable characters a continuous relationship from the European skull, through prehistoric European, prehistoric Egyptian, Congo-Gaboon Negroes to Zulus and Kafirs. The indication is that of a long differentiated evolution, in which the Negro lies nearer to the common stem than the European; he is nearer to the childhood of man."
And now, with the re-appearance of Darwin Medalist Dr Karl Pearson, our short introduction to Darwinical history concludes. The inbred nature of inbred science comes back full circle. Full circle to that compulsive tendency of the Darwinian--that irresistible practice which consists in obsessively, meticuliously, methodically and relentlessly comparing human beings to monkeys and apes.
Tail Salad Surgery

College students, high-school students, and children learn a familiar story about Darwin and Lamarck. It goes like this:

Once apon a time there were two competing theories of evolution. Lamarck had a theory of evolution. Then Darwin came along with another theory of evolution. Which one was correct? Lamarck believed in inheritance of acquired characters. Inheritance of acquired characters works like this, Billy. If you do a lot of weightlifting, your muscles get bigger and you can pass on bigger muscles to your kids. If you are a left-handed baseball pitcher, your descendants may inherit slightly longer left arms. If your fingers get sliced off by a circular saw, your kids may inherit shorter fingers, or maybe no fingers. But we'll leave it to Science to decide which theory is correct, Billy. A scientist named Weismann chopped off the tails of 200 generations of mice and proved that Lamarck was wrong, acquired characters are not inherited. Hooray for Darwin, Billy. Empirical science proved Darwin right.
Of course, Billy is also supposed to draw the conclusion that empirical science proved Darwin right about monkeys changing into people as well. But did you know that there isn't a particle of truth in this story? That it is a gross perversion of fact, logic and history?

In the first place, Lamarck's absurd theories were not competitors to anything. By the time Darwin arrived, Lamarck had passed into obscurity and his ideas were almost completely forgotten. Darwin did not even mention him in the first edition of Origin. Nor had Darwin read Lamarck (if Darwin's testimony is to be believed). It was only later that Darwin was forced to acknowledge Lamarck, after Lyell asked: you don't mean to ignore Lamarck? Although Lamarck was a threat to Darwin's claims of originality ("entire pages sound laughably like mine"), the theory that Darwinism was competing against was Creationism, not Lamarckism.

Lamarck, it is said, believed in the inheritance of acquired characters. Since Darwin's theory was supposedly antagonistic to Lamarck's, Darwinian mythology dictates that Darwin's theory must also have been opposed to the inheritance of acquired characters. This is a grevious logical and historical error because Darwin fully believed in the inheritance of acquired characters, to a degree surpassing even Lamarck, as we shall see.

In Critique of the Theory of Evolution, Thomas Hunt Morgan puts it bluntly:

"Lamarck's name is always associated with the application of the theory of the inheritance of acquired characters. Darwin fully endorsed this view and made use of it as an explanation in all of his writings about animals." [1]
This fact escapes public notice because very few people bother to slog through Darwin's major works. Yet within the first ten pages of Origin ("Effects of Habit and of the Use or Disuse of Parts") it becomes clear that Darwin endorses the very thing which Darwinians attribute to Lamarck:
"With animals the increased use or disuse of parts has had a more marked influence; thus I find in the domestic duck that the bones of the wing weigh less and the bones of the leg more... than do the same bones in the wild duck; and this change may be safely attributed to the domestic duck flying much less, and walking more, than its wild parents. The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with these organs in other countries, is probably another instance of the effects of use." [2]
And then later on in Origin we read "From the facts alluded to in the first chapter, I think there can be no doubt that use in our domestic animals has strengthened and enlarged certain parts, and disuse diminished them; and that such modifications are inherited." [3] Darwin offers the reader many more professions of faith in the inheritance of acquired characters in The Descent of Man. For example, "The inferiority of Europeans, in comparison with savages, in eyesight and in the other senses, is no doubt the accumulated and transmitted effect of lessened use during many generations." [4] Up to this point, Darwin's views on the inheritance of acquired characters are squarely in line with Lamarck's. But then Darwin goes on to exceed Lamarck. For Darwin, even acquired habits, acquired tendencies, acquired moral dispositions and acquired preferences are inherited:
"Why certain bright colours should excite pleasure cannot, I presume, be explained, any more than why certain flavours and scents are agreeable; but habit has something to do with the result, for that which is at first unpleasant to our senses, ultimately becomes pleasant, and habits are inherited." [5]

"There is not the least inherent improbability, as it seems to me, in virtuous tendencies being more or less strongly inherited; for, not to mention the various dispositions and habits transmitted by many of our domestic animals to their offspring, I have heard of authentic cases in which a desire to steal and a tendency to lie appeared to run in families of the upper ranks; and as stealing is a rare crime in the wealthy classes, we can hardly account by accidental coincidence for the tendency occurring in two or three members of the same family. If bad tendencies are transmitted, it is probable that good ones are likewise transmitted." [6]

"A horse is trained to certain paces, and the colt inherits similar consensual movements. The domesticated rabbit becomes tame from close confinement; the dog, intelligent from associating with man; the retriever is taught to fetch and carry; and these mental endowments and bodily powers are all inherited." [7]

In fact, no one ever expended more effort defending and promoting the inheritance of acquired characters than Darwin. Darwin was proud to say so: "As far as concerns myself, I believe that no one has brought forward so many observations on the effects of the use and disuse of parts, as I have done in my Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. [8] Though less well-known, this book is one of Darwin's major works, alongside Origin and Descent. It is an exhaustive elaboration on inheritance of acquired characters and culminates in a theory of heredity formulated to explain why it happens. In Variation, Darwin asks:
"How can the use or disuse of a particular limb or of the brain affect a small aggregate of reproductive cells, seated in a distant part of the body, in such a manner that the being developed from these cells inherits the characters of either one or both parents? Even an imperfect answer to this question would be satisfactory." [9]
Darwin's response to his own question is his theory of heredity, Pangenesis. It is to be noted that Darwin considered his theory, or something very nearly like it, to be the only explanation for the for the phenomenon of the inheritance of acquired characters. [10] Darwin considered it a virtue of his theory, that it was able to explain what he obviously thought was a real phenomenon in nature that needed explaining. For if, as many Darwinians assert, Darwin rejected inheritance of acquired characters, he certainly would not consider it a point in favour of his theory that it explains and predicts a phenomenon that does not exist. The analysis of Darwin's Pangenesis theory and its relationship with other aberrant views on hereditary merits an essay of its own. For the present, a short summary by H. H. Newman will do:
"Darwin considered all variations as heritable. He did not distinguish between somatic variations and germinal variations. In fact, as we learn from a study of his pangenesis theory, he considered all variations as in the first instance somatic, and subsequently transferred by means of gemmules to the germ cells. Every somatic variation, whether induced by use, disuse, in response to environmental stimulus, or through mere spontaneous variability, was supposed to be able to give off gemmules into the blood stream that would carry to the germ cells the physical basis of the varying character. The pangenesis mechanism is now knowm to have no basis in fact." [11]
From this, it should be clear enough that Pangenesis not only implies the inheritance of acquired characters, but the inheritance of acquired mutilations as well.

Let us pass on to Weismann and his experiments with mice. Weismann relates the experiments in his essay The Supposed Transmission of Mutilations. He did not, as some ridiculous authorities relate, chop off the tails of 200 or 100 or even 20 generations of mice.

"The experiments were conducted upon white mice, and were begun in October of last year (1887), with seven females and five males. On October 17 all their tails were cut off, and on November 16 the two first families were born... Thus 901 young were produced by five generations of artificially mutilated parents, and yet there was not a single example of a rudimentary tail or of any other abnormity in this organ. [12]
Weismann was careful to explain that his experiment proved absolutely nothing, and, that it was completely unnecessary, for reasons which will become apparent shortly. He performed this experiment to draw attention to the bankruptcy of the theory of inheritance of acquired characters. However, Lamarck did not say that mutilations such as these are inheritable. In fact, Lamarck denied that mutilations are inherited. So exactly who was Weismann trying to refute? As has been shown above, Darwin exceeded Lamarck in his application of the inheritance of acquired characters. He exceeded Lamarck on the point of inheritance of acquired mutilations as well. It was not Lamarck who believed mutilations can be inherited, but Darwin. In his book Variation, Darwin says,
"The evidence that accidental mutilations can be inherited is at present not decisive; but the remarkable cases observed by Brown-Sequard in guinea-pigs, of the inherited effects of operations, should make us cautious in denying this tendency." [13]
This is followed by many examples. There is a good deal more on inheritance of mutilations in volume 1 of Variation, pages 466--477. Darwin concludes:
"Finally, it must be admitted, more especially since the publication of Brown-Sequard's observations, that the effects of injuries, especially when followed by disease, or perhaps exclusively when thus followed, are occasionally inherited." [14]
And then in volume 2, Darwin continues to reinforce these views about the inheritance of mutilations, along with inheritance of everything else:
"There is ample evidence that the effects of mutilations and of accidents, especially or perhaps exclusively when followed by disease, are occasionally inherited. There can be no doubt that the evil effects of the long-continued exposure of the parent to injurious conditions are sometimes transmitted to the offspring. So it is, as we shall see in a future chapter, with the effects of the use and disuse of parts, and of mental habits." [15]
Weismann, then, is refuting Darwin, along with his own contemporaries who, under the influence of Darwin, assert that acquired characters are inheritable. Weismann says,
"[Darwin] thus came to the conclusion that there is no sufficient reason for denying the transmission of acquired changes. Hence, in Darwin's works, use and disuse still play important parts as direct factors of transformation... I for one frankly admit that I was in this respect under the influence of Darwin for a long time, and that only by approaching the subject from an entirely different direction was I led to doubt the transmission of acquired characters." [16]

"If we inquire for the observation which induced Darwin, for instance, to adopt such an hypothesis, or which at least prevented him from rejecting it,--a very brief answer can be given. There are a small number of observations made upon man and the higher animals which seem to prove that injuries or mutilations of the body can, under certain circumstances, be transmitted to the offspring." [17]

Here Weismann is, of course, weaving in some monstrous distortions of his own, neglecting to mention the countless other erroneous examples and arguments Darwin put forward in support of the inheritance of acquired characters. Bateman sums up the aftermath of Weismann's experiment:
"The occurrence of progressive adaptation by transmission of the effects of use had seemed so natural to Darwin and his contemporaries that no proof of the physiological reality of the phenomenon was thought necessary. Weismann's challenge revealed the utter inadequacy of the evidence on which these beliefs were based." [18]
There is one final point to be resolved. As has been said, Weismann admitted that his experiment proved nothing, nor should it have been necessary. Can you think of a reason why? Weismann points out that humans have been practicing circumcision for thousands of years, without any inherited effect. This observation is far more conclusive than experiments with five generations of mice. You would think that a certain group of so-called scientists following in the footsteps of Darwin would have noticed that. Apparently not. Or perhaps they did notice it, but brushed it aside, as did Darwin:
"With respect to Jews, I have been assured by three medical men of the Jewish faith that circumcision, which has been practised for so many ages, has produced no inherited effect. Blumenbach, however, asserts that Jews are often born in Germany in a condition rendering circumcision difficult, so that a name is given them signifying "born circumcised,"... Dr. Riedel... in North Celebes writes to me that the boys there go naked until from six to ten years old; and he has observed that many of them, though not all, have their prepuces much reduced in length, and this he attributes to the inherited effects of the operation... Notwithstanding the above several negative cases, we now possess conclusive evidence that the effects of operations are sometimes inherited." [19]
The popular historical fable introduced at the beginning of this essay is not a minor slipshod aberration of history. Darwinians have been teaching it for a very long time. And it has serious consequences. The very same historical errors, exposed here, are carried over into the Darwinian version of the history of Trofym Lysenko and Lysenkoism. I'm sure you have heard that Lysenko "rejected Darwin" because he opposed Weismann and Morgan, preferring to believe in the inheritance of acquired characters. What has been said above should shed light on that fairytale.


[1] Thomas Hunt Morgan, Critique of the Theory of Evolution, 1919, pg. 32.

[2] Origin of Species, 6th ed, 1910, pg. 7

[3] Origin, pg. 100 "Effects of increased Use and Disuse of Parts, as controlled by Natural Selection."

[4] The Descent of Man, pg. 33. We have to wonder if it is really true that the eyesight and other senses of Europeans are inferior to those of "savages", or if Darwin was making that up.

[5] The Descent of Man.

[6] The Descent of Man.

[7] Darwin, letter to Wyville Thomson, More Letters of Darwin, vol. 1, pg. 389.

[8] Darwin, Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, v. 2, pg. 367.

[9] Darwin, Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. 2, pg. 367.

[10] Darwin, Life and letters, vol. 3, pg. 44. Variation vol. 2, pg. 367, 388, 398.

[11] Newman, Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, 1921, pg. 247.

[12] August Weismann, The Supposed Transmission of Mutilations, 1880.

[13] Darwin, Variation, pg. 101.

[14] Darwin, Variation, vol. 1, pg. 477.

[15] Darwin, Variation, vol. 2, pg. 57.

[16] August Weismann, The Supposed Transmission of Mutilations, 1880.

[17] August Weismann, The Supposed Transmission of Mutilations, 1880.

[18] Bateman, Mendel's Principles of Heredity, pg.5.

[19] Darwin, Variation, vol. 1, page 467.

What Makes Eugenics Plausible?

[Coming soon.]

The McGregor Fraud

One of the longest running acts on Apeway. H.J. McGregor, member of the American Eugenics Society. student of Henry Fairfield Osborn. [Coming soon.]

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Peking Man

[Coming soon.]

Nature versus Nurture and other Plagues

[Coming soon.]

Why Bother with History?

[Coming soon.]