SG Morton

Oard (2009b) Omits Interesting Details on Racist Creationist S.G. Morton

Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.

May 4, 2014

Oard (2009b, p. 127) quotes Gould (1978) as stating that unconscious manipulation of data is the “norm” in science. Mr. Oard's dubious goal is to show that scientists are at least as biased and bad as everybody else in handling evidence, and that people should not trust geologists when they advocate pre-Pleistocene glaciations. Whether Dr. Gould's opinion is a realistic assessment of current science or an exaggeration could be debated, but Gould (1978) is not the best source to serve Mr. Oard's agenda. Not surprisingly, Oard (2009b, p. 127) leaves out some interesting details about scientific biases from Gould (1978). Gould (1978) discusses the work of Samuel George Morton (1799 - 1851), a racist that unconscientiously manipulated measurements of the volumes of human craniums to “prove” that the White race was more intelligent than the Black or Native American races. When citing Gould (1978), Mr. Oard never discusses Morton's work or how it was especially welcomed among creationist, pro-slavery southern Americans. Gould (1978, p. 503) makes the following statements about racist polygenist and mongenist creationists:

“In pre-Darwinian America, polygenists argued for a separate (and unequal) creation of human races. Mongenists, placing their faith in scripture, traced all human diversity to an original Adam and Eve, and sought a scientific sanction for black inferiority in a greater degeneration from primeval perfection.”

Gould (1978, p. 503) even mentions how Morton used a recent creation argument to support the racist “polygenist school”:

“As a prominent member of the polygenist school, he [Morton] believed that the major human races had been created separately as true species. He argued that blacks and Caucasians were as distinct in ancient Egypt as they are today. Since humanity, following Moses, was not much more than 1000 years older than Egypt...[reference number omitted], races did not have enough time to differentiate from a common stock; they must have been created as we find them today.”

Gould (1978, p. 504) also writes that many individuals from both creationist schools, the polygenist and more fundamentalist monogenist, were readily able to justify slavery and racism:

“The polygenist belief in a separate created status for blacks and whites might have served as a primary defense for slavery in America; indeed, many polygenists (not including Morton) used their theory to support the South's 'peculiar institution.' But most apologists for slavery did not care to pay the price that polygeny demanded for its excellent argument - a denial of scriptural authority in the tale of Adam and Eve. After all, scripture can be bent to support any position, degeneration of blacks under the curse of Ham in this case.”

“In its obituary for Morton, the South's leading medical journal wrote: 'We of the South should consider him as our benefactor, for aiding most materially in giving to the negro [sic] his true position as an inferior race.” [sic] [quoted from Charleston Medical Journal]

At the same time, it must be noted that Gould (1978, p. 509, footnote #15) describes Morton as an old-Earth creationist:

“Morton was not an antiscientific biblical idolater. He accepted geological evidence for the antiquity of the earth, and was, himself, a distinguished early American paleontologist (he described, for example, the fossils collected during the Lewis and Clark expedition). He accepted the Mosaic date for human creation because no fossil evidence then existed for earlier hominids.”

In other words, 19th century polygenists and mongenists were not just racists, they were also “creation scientists”, although at least polygenist Morton was of the old-Earth variety. Morton's supporters, whether polygenist or mongenist, were trying to use his supposed evidence of cranium volumes to prove the “inferiority” of the non-white races and support their various biblical interpretations of the creation of races in Genesis. Certainly, there are cases of scientists (both secular and religious) deliberately or unconscientiously manipulating data. This is why it's important to use the Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses and why actualism is a superior system to YEC dogmatism in maximizing plausible hypotheses without slipping in unproven supernaturalism just to support a groundless biblical agenda.

References

Gould, S.J. 1978. “Morton's Ranking of Races by Cranial Capacity,” Science, v. 200, pp. 503-509.

Oard, M.J. 2009b. "Do Varves Contradict Biblical History?", chapter 8 in M.J. Oard and J.K. Reed (editors). 2009. Rock Solid Answers: The Biblical Truth Behind 14 Geological Questions, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, pp. 125-148.