"An age of science is necessarily an age of materialism,"
wrote Hugh Elliot early in the last century. "Ours is a scientific
age, and it may be said with truth that we are all materialists
One does not have to look far to discover the continued
accuracy of Elliot's assessment. Scientific materialism--the claim
that everything in the universe can be fully explained by
science as the products of unintelligent matter and
energy--has become the operating assumption for much of American
politics and culture. We are repeatedly told today that our
behaviors, our emotions, even our moral and religious longings are
reducible to some combination of physical processes interacting
with our environment.
In 1943, British writer C. S. Lewis wrote prophetically
about the dangers of scientific materialism in a small, penetrating
volume titled The Abolition of Man. There Lewis warned that
"if man chooses to treat himself as raw material, raw material
he will be: not raw material to be manipulated, as he fondly
imagined, by himself, but by mere appetite...in the person of his
My book Darwin Day in America explores the impact on
American politics and culture of the materialistic abuse of
science Lewis warned about so many years ago. Contrary to its
title, the book is not just about Darwin. It is about how modern
science--a very good thing--has been misappropriated by
scientific elitists who want to offer a materialistic
explanation of every part of human culture.
Darwin comes into the story because his theory of unguided
evolution based on natural selection and random variations offered
a seemingly convincing explanation for how materialism could
actually work. That is why someone like Richard Dawkins praises
Darwin for making "it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled
atheist." But Darwinism is only one part of the
larger problem, and scientific materialism reaches far beyond
The effort to apply scientific materialism to American public
policy began in earnest more than a century ago with high hopes.
Around the turn of the 20th century, defenders of scientific
materialism began issuing increasingly lofty claims about how the
understanding of the material world offered by science could be
enlisted to solve all the problems of human society. The same
scientific advances that produced inventions like the steam engine
and medical breakthroughs like the germ theory of disease were
also supposed to supply the basis for eliminating a host of social
ills ranging from poverty and crime to unproductive workers.
Writing in the journal Science in 1903, J. McKeen
Cattell, president of the American Society of Naturalists,
argued that previous scientific achievements in helping man
subjugate the natural world were just a foretaste of the future
power science would bestow on man to control human nature:
The nineteenth century witnessed an extraordinary increase
in our knowledge of the material world and in our power to
make it subservient to our ends; the twentieth century will
probably witness a corresponding increase in our knowledge of
human nature and in our power to use it for our welfare.
Charles Eliot, president of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS), similarly predicted in 1915
that "biological science" would open the door "to the prevention as
well as cure of [the]... bodily defects" that caused such
antisocial behaviors as murder, robbery, forgery, and
prostitution. "These are all biological problems; and the progress
of biological inquiry during the past fifty years is
sufficient to afford the means of solving on a large scale these
fundamental social problems."
Such comments embodied perfectly the optimistic vision
offered by scientific materialism at the dawn of the last century.
During an era when science seemed to be uncovering the material
basis of all human problems, it was widely believed that science
with a capital "S" could lead to the transformation of society,
bringing about greater human freedom, dignity, and happiness
in the process. In short, scientific materialism was supposed to be
a great engine of human progress in politics and culture.
It was not. Human nature was not reformed; crime did not
disappear; and scientific materialism did not usher in a new age of
liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, the excesses of
scientific materialism have continued to influence American
public policy in at least five important ways.
One influence of scientific materialism on American public
policy has been the elevation of technocracy--rule by scientific
experts--over democracy. Since science was supposed to be the only
true source of objective information about the world, proponents of
scientific materialism logically concluded that scientists--not the
general public or their elected representatives--should be the
ultimate arbiters of public policy.
At its core, this message was profoundly anti-egalitarian and
anti-democratic. Speaking before the Second International Congress
of Eugenics in 1921, Alleyne Ireland declared that current
conditions had rendered America's original form of government,
established by the Constitution and the Declaration of
Independence, "utterly unsuitable." America's Founders believed
that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed," and they set up arrangements "designed with a view to
making abuse of power difficult." But in an age when government
must increasingly provide a wide range of social services, society
could no longer afford to rely on government by non-experts.
Ireland stated that it was "imperative...that the omnipresent
activity of government should be guided by the light of
scientific knowledge and conducted through the instrumentality of a
The claim that society should place its faith in scientific
experts rather than ordinary citizens or elected officials was a
common refrain in public policy debates influenced by
scientific materialism. To be sure, few were as blunt as Ireland in
directly attacking the Constitution or demanding that
scientists govern ordinary citizens. Yet in controversy after
controversy, the underlying message was unmistakable. Whether the
issue was education or welfare or crime, members of the public were
urged to place their trust in the findings of scientific experts
rather than in their own core beliefs or the views of political and
religious leaders. Science dictated the replacement of
punishment with treatment in the criminal justice system, the
enactment of forced sterilization in the welfare system, and the
substitution of supposedly "value-free" information from sex
researchers for traditional moral teachings about family life in
public schools. In each of these areas, the claim was made at least
implicitly that scientific expertise should trump other
sources of knowledge, including ethics, philosophy, tradition,
religion, and common sense.
Of course, there is much that can be said in favor of the
authority of scientific expertise in modern life. In an
increasingly complex and technologically driven world, the need for
scientific input on public policy would seem obvious. Since many
policy questions today arise in such science-based fields as
medicine, transportation, and ecology, why should politicians and
voters not simply defer to the authority of scientific experts in
Although this line of reasoning exhibits a surface
persuasiveness, it ignores the natural limits of scientific
expertise. Scientific knowledge may be necessary for good
public policy in certain areas, but it is not sufficient. Political
problems are preeminently moral problems, and scientists are ill
equipped to function as moralists. C. S. Lewis warned about this
drawback of technocracy in the 1950s. "I dread specialists in
power, because they are specialists speaking outside their
special subjects," Lewis wrote. "Let scientists tell us about
sciences. But government involves questions about the good for man,
and justice, and what things are worth having at what price;
and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added
For example, wildlife biologists may be able to provide
policymakers with information about which species are in danger of
extinction. Perhaps they can also predict some of the costs of a
species' extinction to biodiversity. But they have no more
authority than anyone else in determining whether a particular
endangered species is more valuable than the jobs that may be lost
trying to save that species from extinction. Politics is largely
about ranking and reconciling competing goods; but the ranking of
goods involves questions of justice and morality, and as Lewis
pointed out, "a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added
value" on such questions.
Technocracy poses a further difficulty: The limits of human
reason assure that experts can be wrong, sometimes egregiously. If
the history of scientific materialism in politics shows anything,
it is that scientific experts can be as fallible as anyone
else. They are capable of being blinded by their own prejudices and
going beyond the evidence in order to promote the policies
they favor. Alfred Kinsey's empirical claims about the sexual
behavior of the general American public were junk science, given
his deeply flawed sample population; yet that did not stop him
from boldly making his claims and vigorously defending them as
The errors of the scientific community in the early 20th century
were profound. For decades, eugenics--the effort to breed better
human beings by applying the principles of Darwinian biology to
reproduction--was embraced as legitimate by America's leading
scientists and scientific organizations such as the AAAS.
Critics of eugenics, meanwhile, were roundly stigmatized as
anti-science and religious zealots. Yet the critics of
eugenics were the ones who turned out to be right, not the
Similarly, the lobotomy was uncritically embraced for years by
the medical community as a miracle cure, and the scientist who
pioneered the operation in human beings won a Nobel Prize for his
efforts. Only after tens of thousands of individuals had been
lobotomized did healthy skepticism prevail.
The point is that public policy claims made by scientists ought
to be scrutinized by policymakers and citizens in the same way that
public policy claims made by other interested parties are
scrutinized. Any suggestion that policymakers should simply
rubber-stamp the advice of the current majority of scientists is
profoundly subversive of the fundamental principles of
representative democracy. As equal citizens before the law,
scientists have every right to inform policymakers of the
scientific implications of their actions, but they have no
special right to demand that policymakers listen to them
Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing chorus urging
that public policy be dictated by the majority of scientific
experts without input from anyone else. Today, this bold assertion
is made not just with regard to evolution, but concerning a host of
other controversial issues such as sex education, euthanasia,
embryonic stem-cell research, cloning, and global warming. On these
matters, any dissent from the orthodoxy of the "experts" allegedly
represents a "war on science."
A second influence of scientific materialism on public policy
has been the cultivation of a vigorous form of utopianism.
Believing they possessed the key to understanding and ultimately
controlling human behavior, defenders of scientific materialism
over the past century were supremely confident that science could
usher in heaven on earth if experts were only permitted to
implement its teachings without obstruction.
Their heady optimism is not difficult to understand. By the
late 19th century, science had produced marvelous advances in
medicine, agriculture, sanitation, and transportation. Why could
the triumphs of the scientific method over the natural world
not be extended to the social sphere? If science could prevent
the spread of physical diseases like smallpox, why could it not
also prevent outbreaks of social diseases like crime and
poverty? If science could breed better strains of cattle and corn,
why could it not breed better kinds of people?
Addressing the American Breeders Association in 1913, U.S.
Secretary of Agriculture James Wilson acknowledged that the
wholesale replacement of "inferior" human stocks with "the best
part of the human race...at first seems like an Utopian vision" but
then quickly added: "Why should it not come? Must science stop in
its beneficence with the plant and the animal? Is not man, after
all, the architect of his own racial destiny?"
Wilson's rosy rhetoric revealed the startling
naïveté at the heart of the scientific materialist
agenda. Scientists and policymakers who were readily skeptical
of claims made by religion or tradition turned out to be supremely
credulous when it came to claims made in the name of science. They
accepted at face value the purported benefits of such
procedures as lobotomies, psychosurgery, and forced
sterilization. They made grand promises about how science could
solve intractable social problems such as crime and poverty. They
showed little appreciation for the fact that science, like all
human endeavors, could be misused, especially when allied with
Eugenist Herbert Walter sanguinely predicted that nothing like
"the Spanish Inquisition or...the Salem witchcraft persecution"
would take place in an age of modern science. Only two decades
before the Nazis ascended to power in Germany, Walter predicted
that "it 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." Eugenist Harry Laughlin
similarly asserted with confidence that no one-- not even one
person--had been wrongly sterilized in America.
AAAS president Charles Eliot at least acknowledged the
prospect that physical and chemical science could be enlisted
"as means of destruction and death." But even he thought the
application of biology to society posed no danger: "Biological
science has great advantage in this respect over physical and
chemical [science]. It can not so frequently or easily be applied
to evil ends." Eliot wrote those words in 1915 as the
eugenics movement was well on its way to forcing the sterilization
of thousands of people across America.
This is not intended to imply that scientific materialism
was the only source of utopianism in America. There were
elements of utopianism in religious reform movements of the 1800s
and early 1900s, as well as in various expressions of secular
populism. But scientific materialism was one of the most
powerful sources of utopianism because it eroded previous
obstacles to the spread of utopianism.
Prior to the rise of scientific materialism, a strong realist,
anti-utopian sentiment in American political culture
counterbalanced the idealism and utopianism of reformers.
America's Founders, in addition to their idealism, displayed a keen
realism about the imperfections of human nature. "If men were
angels, no government would be necessary," James Madison wrote in
The Federalist. "The best Institutions may be abused
by human depravity.... [T]hey may even...be made subservient to the
vilest of purposes," echoed George Washington.
The anti-utopian undercurrent in American culture continued
during the 19th century when writers such as Nathaniel
Hawthorne satirized the overblown hopes of contemporary reformers.
In his short story "Earth's Holocaust" (1844), Hawthorne described
how militant do-gooders planned to cleanse the earth of
imperfection by creating a giant bonfire out on the western
prairies on which they could throw every conceivable cause of
social evil. The great conflagration burned for days
and consumed everything thrown into it, but the fire still did
not produce the perfect society. Hawthorne's punch line was that
the reformers failed because they could not reach the ultimate
cause of human misery: the human heart. Social conditions might wax
and wane, but sinful human nature was unchangeable this side of
Scientific materialism tried to refute this kind of political
realism. According to its adherents, human nature was not fixed; it
could be remade through the methods of modern science. Men may not
be angels now, but under the right biological and
environmental conditioning, they might become angelic.
Scientific breeding and medical treatment could usher in a new age
only dreamt of by previous reformers. Scientific materialism
undermined the very premises of American political realism.
One would like to believe that Americans have learned from the
excesses of scientific utopianism, but current political
controversies inspire no confidence in this regard. The miracle
cures may be different today, but the utopian rhetoric is
Seventy years ago, eugenics promised to cure America's social
problems through better breeding. Today, mental-health crusaders
promise to eliminate behavioral problems among America's
children by screening every schoolchild for mental illness and
putting millions of them on psychoactive drugs. Like the
eugenics crusade of the last century, the current push to increase
dramatically the number of children on psychoactive drugs reduces
behavioral problems to a purely material cause. Like the eugenics
crusade, it is accompanied by grandiose claims that go far beyond
the actual science. Like the eugenics crusade, it is justified in
humanitarian terms even while it raises serious issues about civil
liberties and human dignity. How many people will be harmed before
this latest crusade runs out of steam?
A third influence of scientific materialism on public policy has
been dehumanization. Although its supporters saw scientific
materialism as a way to solve social problems and advance human
dignity, the historical record shows that it often denigrated
entire classes of humanity. The claim that men and women could be
reduced to their physical capacities plus their material
inputs turned out to be profoundly dehumanizing.
In criminal justice, the belief that a person was, in the words
of one textbook, "no more 'responsible' for becoming wilful and
committing a crime than the flower for becoming red and
fragrant" may have led to more humane treatment in
some cases, but it also robbed the criminal offender of the dignity
of being treated as a rational being whose choices matter. At
the same time, in many other cases it opened the door to horrific
forms of "scientific" rehabilitation that never would have been
allowed if they had been imposed as punishments.
- In sex education, the depiction of human sexuality as
little more than mammalian behavior reduced human beings to the
level of animals and drained human relationships of the moral and
spiritual context that gave them their deepest meaning.
- In the corporate world, scientific materialism fed eugenic
employment policies and the use of advertising to manipulate
consumers scientifically into purchasing products.
- In the welfare system, the quest to identify the biological
roots of poverty paved the way for forced sterilization,
anti-immigrant hysteria, and the demonization of anyone who was
regarded as physically or mentally imperfect.
The impact of scientific materialism on welfare policy is
especially worth noting because it directly challenged the guiding
principles of the existing social-welfare system. Charity in the
traditional view was premised on the idea that all human beings are
created in the image of God and therefore worthy of
assistance, mercy, and redemption. Eugenic welfare reformers
denounced such humanitarian views as false and dangerous.
Harvard biologist Edward East attacked the idea that "man is
created in the image of God" as unscientific and suggested that the
claim that all human beings have equal worth is ludicrous.
Margaret Sanger warned of the "dangers inherent in the very idea of
humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced
their full harvest of human waste, of inequality and
America's experience with the dehumanizing effects of scientific
materialism was far from exceptional. The three regimes of the
20th century best known for being founded explicitly on the
principles of scientific materialism--Soviet Russia, Nazi
Germany, and Communist China--are most remembered for their
horrific brutality rather than any advancement of human dignity. In
Germany, the connection between scientific materialism and Nazi
crimes against humanity is unmistakable, as historian Richard
Weikart has ably demonstrated in his recent book on the influence
of Darwinian ethics in Germany.
The dehumanizing effects of scientific materialism remain a
live issue for public policy today, especially in so-called
right-to-die cases. Efforts to redefine mentally and physically
disabled infants and adults as already dead, the widespread
careless diagnosis of the "persistent vegetative state," and the
demeaning rhetoric of bioethicists such as Peter Singer all raise,
chillingly, the ghosts of evils past.
A fourth influence of scientific materialism on public policy
has been relativism. Darwinian theory in particular has
supplied a powerful justification for evolving standards in
politics and morality. Part of the justification is by way of
analogy: If evolution is the normal state of the natural
world, why should it not be regarded as the normal state of
The preeminent achievement of applying the evolutionary paradigm
to politics was the doctrine of the evolving Constitution
championed by Woodrow Wilson and other Progressives. No longer
would American government be hamstrung by a static understanding of
human nature or human rights. It must adapt and evolve to meet the
challenges of new conditions. In the words of Wilson:
[L]iving political constitutions must be Darwinian in
structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must
obey the laws of Life.... [A]ll that progressives ask or desire is
permission...to interpret the Constitution according to the
But the link between Darwinian theory and relativism is not
merely analogical. In The Descent of Man, Darwin depicted
morality as the evolving product of natural selection. Rather than
reflecting timeless standards of truth sanctioned by God or nature,
moral codes evolved by natural selection to promote survival. As
the conditions for survival changed, so did what was moral for any
species. In one situation, maternal love might be moral; in another
situation, infanticide. In one situation, kindness might be
moral; in another situation, cruelty.
While Darwin surely hoped that traditional virtues were
biologically beneficial in 19th century Britain, if circumstances
changed and those virtues no longer promoted survival, he would
have to grant that they would no longer be virtues. Darwin himself
admitted as much in a particularly startling passage:
If...men were reared under precisely the same conditions as
hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females
would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their
brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters;
and no one would think of interfering.
Whatever his own personal moral preferences, Darwin's
reductionistic account of the development of morality left little
room for objectively preferring one society's morality over
another's. Each society's moral code presumably developed to
promote the survival of that society, and so each society's moral
code could be considered equally "natural."
Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origin of the family
was just as relativistic. It was clear from his account that there
was no right form of marriage or family life for every time and
place. Sexual standards differed sharply across societies and
human history, and each form of family life was adapted to meet the
biological and environmental requirements of its particular
situation. In Darwin's framework, everything that regularly
occurred in nature must be regarded as normal almost by
While for the most part Darwin did not press his relativistic
analysis of morality to its logical conclusion, he laid the
groundwork for others who came after him. The ultimate result of
Darwinian moral relativism can be seen in the sex research of
zoologist Alfred Kinsey and the moral pluralism embraced by sex
education reformers from the 1960s to today. Their efforts to
convince the public that all variations of sexual behavior are
"normal"--including, according to some of them, adult-child
sex and even incest--were a logical culmination of the approach
Darwin pursued in The Descent of Man.
Stifling Free Speech
A final influence of scientific materialism on public policy has
been the suppressing of free speech and debate over the public
policy implications of science. This is surely one of the most
striking ironies of the effort to enlist scientific
materialism to reform society.
In their own minds, proponents of scientific materialism were
the defenders of enlightenment against superstition and rational
debate against unreasoning dogmatism, but the rhetoric they
employed against their opponents is often far from conducive to
open debate. The repeated insistence that scientists know best and,
thus, politicians and the public should blindly accept the policy
views of scientists did not encourage critical scrutiny of
scientific claims made in politics.
Even less conducive to genuine debate was the frequent playing
of the religion card in policy disputes involving science.
With the help of sympathetic journalists, proponents of
scientific materialism portrayed every policy dispute as a
battle pitting the enlightened forces of science against
bigoted religious extremists. Promoters of eugenics heaped scorn on
Catholic and fundamentalist critics of forced sterilization.
Advocates of Kinsey-style sex education demonized parents who
raised objections as Bible-thumpers who were conspiring against
democracy. Today, defenders of a Darwin-only biology
curriculum similarly accuse their opponents of trying to insert the
Biblical creation story into science classes, even when such
claims are inaccurate.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of these attempts to frame
policy disputes in terms of religion versus science is the
attempt to shift the focus from the content of the debates to the
supposed motives of those who oppose any claim made in the name of
science. Instead of addressing the policy arguments raised by
critics of sex education or Darwin-only science education,
defenders of scientific materialism try to make the religious
beliefs of their opponents the central issue, arguing that critics'
real or perceived religious motivations somehow disqualify
them from being active participants in the public square.
America is a deeply religious country, and no doubt many critics
of the agenda of scientific materialism are motivated in part
by their religious beliefs. So what? Many opponents of slavery were
motivated by their religious beliefs, and many leaders of the
civil rights movement were even members of the clergy. All of them
had an equal right with other citizens to raise their voices in
public debates. So long as religious persons in politics offer
secular justifications for their policy proposals, they have every
right to demand that their ideas be heard on the merits regardless
of their private religious views.
In the controversy over the teaching of Darwinian theory in
public education, reporters often note the supposed religious
beliefs of critics of Darwin's theory, but they almost never
investigate the anti-religious beliefs of many of the leading
defenders of evolutionary theory. Why? Motives are either
relevant for both sides of a political dispute, or they are
irrelevant to either side. The willingness of some reporters to
embrace uncritically the agenda of Darwinists represents a
grave disservice to the public as well as a serious breach of
journalistic ethics. Given the troubled legacy of scientific
materialism in public policy, what is needed is greater
critical scrutiny of scientific materialism in politics, not
Conservatives who are uncomfortable with current debates
over science and public policy need to realize that the debates are
not going to go away, because scientific materialism raises
fundamental challenges to the traditional Western understanding of
human nature and the universe. Scientific materialism is
central to arguments over moral relativism, personal
responsibility, limited government, and scientific utopianism.
Moreover, these debates are not going away because many of
America's most influential scientists are avowed materialists,
and it is nearly impossible for them to separate their
materialism from their policy recommendations. Nearly 95 percent of
biologists in the National Academy of Sciences, for example,
identify themselves as either atheists or agnostics. We are not
supposed to wonder how their materialism influences their
application of scientific expertise to public affairs?
As members of a free society, we should be willing to
defend vigorously the right of laypeople and scientists to voice
dissent from the current scientific consensus, whether the issue is
global warming, the over-prescription of Ritalin for children, the
content of sex education, or even the debate over Darwinism
and intelligent design.
We do not always have to agree with dissenters in order to
defend their right to present their views free from harassment and
intimidation. But if we are unwilling to defend their right to
debate scientific issues implicating public policy, we have no
grounds for complaint when the agenda of the scientific elites
leads to coercive utopianism or when every attempt to raise a
different point of view is smeared as an attack on science.
Contrary to the assertions of some, robust public scrutiny of
claims made in the name of science does not constitute a "war
against science." Indeed, it may be the very thing that saves
science from its own excesses.
John West, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery
Institute, Associate Director of the Institute's Center for Science
and Culture, and author of Darwin Day in America: How Our
Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science
(ISI Books, 2007).
Elliot, Modern Science and Materialism, 2nd impression
(London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1927), p. 138.
S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan
Publishing, 1947), p. 84.
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why
the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
(New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1996), p. 6.
McKeen Cattell, "Homo Scientificus Americanus," Science,
April 10, 1903, p. 569.
Charles W. Eliot, "The Fruits, Prospects and
Lessons of Recent Biological Science," Science, December 31,
1915, p. 926.
"Eugenics in Politics," The New York
Times, October 9, 1921, p. 93.
S. Lewis, "Is Progress Possible? Willing Slaves of the Welfare
State," in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 315.
for example, Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science
(New York: Basic Books, 2005).
James Wilson, "Presidential Address,"
American Breeders Magazine Vol. 4, No.1 (First Quarter,
1913), p. 56.
Herbert Walter, "Human Conservation," in
Horatio Hackett Newman, Evolution, Genetics and Eugenics,
3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932), p. 531. The
essay was reprinted from a book published by Walter in 1913.
Harry Hamilton Laughlin et al., Legal
Status of Eugenical Sterilization (Chicago: Fred J. Ringley
Co., 1930), p. 79.
Eliot, "The Fruits, Prospects and Lessons of
Recent Biological Science," p. 928.
James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 51
in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The
Federalist Papers (New York: New American Library, 1961), p.
George Washington, "[Proposed Address to
Congress]," in John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George
Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799
(Washington, D.C.: United States George Washington Bicentennial
Commission), Vol. 30, pp. 301-302.
Nathaniel Cantor, Crime, Criminals
and Criminal Justice (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1932), p.
Edward M. East, Heredity and Human
Affairs (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1927), p. 29.
Margaret Sanger in Michael W. Perry, ed.,
The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective
(Seattle, Wash.: Inkling Books, 2001), p. 214.
Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom: A Call
for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, with
an introduction and notes by William Leuchtenburg (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961), pp. 41-42.
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and
Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1981), Vol. 1, p. 73. This is a reprint of the
first edition, which was published in 1871.