I’ve read plenty about evolution over the years, but last week, I came across something new (to me, at any rate) in Nancy Pearcey’s book The Toxic War on Masculinity: Charles Darwin’s view of women. His views were shared by at least some of his contemporary proponents of evolution as well.
Darwin made it very clear that he thought women were inferior to men. He wrote, for example, that man reaches “a higher eminence [position of superiority], in whatever he takes up, than can woman.” He added that “the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” Darwin explained that this supposed mental superiority of men came about because natural selection favors stronger, more courageous males, especially in regard to “winning”–and “retaining”–females. Darwin conceded that men no longer have to literally fight for a mate, “yet they generally have to undergo, during manhood, a severe struggle in order to maintain themselves and their families; and this will tend to keep up or even increase their mental powers.”
This should raise a red flag; how do physical strength and courage translate into mental superiority? During Darwin’s time, it was assumed that men pass on more of their traits to their sons; likewise, women do the same to their daughters. Therefore, in succeeding generations, males would get the stronger “mental genes” than females. Current evidence actually suggests the opposite may be true: that children (regardless of their sex) get intelligence genes primarily from their mothers. I’m not trying to come down on one side or the other, but simply trying to show that the common view of Darwin’s time regarding the passing on of traits seems to have been an assumption not based on any kind of evidence. Much more importantly, even though physical strength and courage are important, the idea that somehow they imply greater intelligence is, frankly, stupid.
Darwin acknowledged that women have “greater tenderness and less selfishness” than men as well as greater “powers of intuition, and rapid perception.” However, he denigrated these positive female traits as “characteristic of the lower races.” Racism, anyone?!According to Darwin, the primary goal of males was to pass on their genes to succeeding generations, so traits commonly associated with women, such as tenderness and intuition, didn’t have much value in his eyes.
It wasn’t only Darwin who had a lower view of women. Anthropologist James McGrigor Allan wrote in 1869 that “physically, mentally and morally, woman is a kind of adult child.” And then we have another contemporary of Darwin named Thomas Huxley, sometimes called “Darwin’s Bulldog,” who said that even education could not elevate women to intellectual equality with men. Because natural selection had endowed women with inferior abilities, that genetic inferiority was not “likely to be removed by even the most skillfully conducted educational selection.” In other words, women are stuck in their intellectual inferiority in comparison with men.
It’s hard to imagine anyone now espousing such nonsense about the supposed intellectual inferiority of women; it’s patently false as well as very insulting. However, while contemporary evolutionists ignore the supposed mental inequality of the sexes as expressed by Darwin and his contemporaries, they continue to stick firmly to a theory which continues to be discredited, including by scientists. I’m not a scientist, but if you are interested in some other posts I’ve written related to evolution, here are links to a few. Don’t worry; they are non-technical.
https://keithpetersenblog.com/2020/09/16/is-evolution-a-viable-theory/
This one discusses five major problems with evolution.
https://keithpetersenblog.com/2024/02/07/what-evolutionary-psychology-cant-explain/
This one gives examples of what evolutionary psychology can’t explain.
https://keithpetersenblog.com/2024/10/03/can-you-live-by-an-evolutionary-worldview/
This one gives examples of people who have not been able to live according to their own evolutionary worldview.
I should add that there are theistic evolutionists out there; in fact, I have a good friend who is one. They believe that God guided the process of evolution. However, the first chapter of the Bible says nine times that God created various vegetation and animals “according to their kinds/its kind.” This repeated phrase indicates that guided evolution was not part of God’s plan.
I hope the lower view of women that Darwin and some of his contemporaries had will also cause you to question evolution if you haven’t already. If you are not a Christian, and especially if you believe in evolution, I hope that you will continue to investigate. Maybe you will come to the same conclusion that I and so many others have come to: Evolution is a debunked theory that you should not put your faith in, but if you put your faith in Jesus Christ, He will give you the peace and joy you long for.
To the Remnant 
Thank you for this good post, Keith. Darwin said so many ugly things (and I have heard of some of these comments about women) that I don’t understand why he remains a hero to so many. His theory seems to be questioned more and more as time goes by. He talked about the lack of a fossil record to back his theory that still exists to this day. To those who think the word “theory” means “proven truth” when it comes to evolution, I wish you a good day but I think you should either use the word theory as it is defined or use another word.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Chris. In at least one of my previous posts, I mentioned the lack of a fossil record as well. Regarding the word “theory:” I agree that evolution no longer deserves the word “theory” (if it ever did), and most people regard it as a fact. However, I have chosen, at least up till now, to use the word “theory” in relation to evolution since that is how most people commonly use it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, keith. I use the word “theory” as well but the evolutionists want to use it as a word that means “a fact.” That is hard for me, as a former educator, to do in all honesty. It causes nothing but confusion. Thank you for the reply.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right. There’s a huge difference between the theory of gravity (which is also a demonstrable fact) and the theory of evolution, which hardly even qualifies as a theory anymore, let alone a fact! Thanks, Chris.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome, Keith, and thank you again for the good post!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the interesting info, Keith. We know that Herbert Spencer used Darwin’s theories to propagate Social Darwinism, which had catastrophic consequences in the 20th century.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Tom. I almost used a quote from Spencer, but since it wasn’t directly related to his view of women, I decided not to. You’re right, though, about Spencer, Social Darwinism, and its disastrous consequences in the 20th century.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Keith, I didn’t know that Darwin felt women were intellectually inferior to men. I don’t think it’s fair to blame the theory of evolution since this was probably a majority view in the 19th century. However, the theory of evolution was a very important although not the only reason for the decline of Christian belief and morality in the West since the late 19th century. One of the main reasons for the moral nihilism of the contemporary world is because of the view that we are no more than highly evolved animals, I don’t know how to reverse this trend since the only educational institutions in the U.S. that reject teaching evolution as fact are conservative Christian schools and colleges. I heard that even some professors in evangelical seminaries teach theistic evolution. May the Lord bless your ministry.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tony, the belief that women are intellectually inferior to men goes way back to at least the ancient Greeks, including Plato. In that regard, I suppose you can’t “blame” evolutionary theory. However, when you look carefully at what Darwin wrote, he couched his comments in terms of natural selection. Darwin certainly didn’t do anything to dissuade people from that notion of female inferiority, to put it mildly.
Regarding our educational institutions: yes, they continue to promulgate evolution; sometimes even Christian schools and universities do as well. I would add that the majority of the media also “assist” in this. It’s a way for people to justify acting like animals (albeit highly “evolved” ones) as you alluded to.
As always, I appreciate your comment!
LikeLike
I will share this in the next apologetic round up post on my blog
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Brother; I appreciate it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
God bless
LikeLiked by 1 person
Same to you, Brother.
LikeLiked by 1 person
😃
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Brother, for linking to my post!
LikeLike
Amen, Keith! Thanks for an enlightening post. I’m going to save it for future reference. (The ironies are hard to miss. 😏)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Annie. May our Lord receive the glory!
LikeLike