Any attempt to separate a ‘good' Darwin from a ‘bad' Social Darwinist cannot be sustained against a careful reading of Darwin's own writing. He enthusiastically endorsed his cousin Francis Galton's view of hereditary genius transmitted down the male line, and nodded cautiously towards eugenics. During the 150 years since Darwin wrote such views on race, gender and eugenics, whilst sometimes subterranean, they have never entirely vanished; a sorry history, often told. three uses of the term ‘race': the popular usage, that used by the social sciences, and that of biologists. For biologists, the definition is, at first sight, reasonably clear: a race is an interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. However, it is hard to apply such definitions to humans. Geographical isolation scarcely exists today, and even in humanity's past it became commonplace that ‘genes travel along roads'. Nor is the definition of a ‘population' obvious: one can expand or contract the size of the group almost at will . Yet, there are differences in gene frequency between those living in north and south Wales, for example. This is why referring to a person's ‘biogeographical ancestry' is a more useful terms. :)
