Evolution and Racism

[Nepenthe]

Certainly not. Matters of skin color and nasal configuration are incredibly fast to adapt in the human genome. The fairskinned people up in the cold climates needed all the vitamin D they could absorb, for example, and melanoma is far more rare among dark-skinned people.

Of course, some traits, like sickle cell anemia, lactose intolerance, Tay-Sachs, various immunities, tendencies to alcoholism and migraine and insanity (particularly in isolated populations, like say, the Western Irish),‘shovel-shaped’ dentition (apparently one of the fastest-adapting traits of all, dentition!) …the list goes on and on, but by and large, given the sudden rise and expansion of the human race, well, you’ll just have that!

Even hair types are pretty clearly useful genetically - kinky African hair both wicks away moisture and heat, and provides extra protection from impacts possibly. ‘White’ peoples’ hair helps bead and shake fog and mist away, and Asian hair both slides snow and dust away, and is relatively unbulky. These are total generalizations, but they are examples of how fast and practical human evolution can be! And all these are pretty recent, and as far as our genes are concerned, simply practical, cosmetic, and rapidly changeable.

PS- yes, the ‘Social Darwinists’ simply used his famous samd respected name,and didn’t have diddly to do with Darwin,or any part of evolutionary theory. Total buncombe, all that noise, just another horsepuckey excuse for some people saying ‘we are intrinsically superior to you because we have more money and stuff’ schlockery, while they discuss it over martinis and manicures at their expense-accounted spas and sex-tourism.

 

[DavWan]

Interesting defensiveness on the Darwinist part.

Still, Eugenics was inspired from Darwinism, even if Darwin would have repudiated it. It is a shameful reality. Just like there were some racists who were creationists.

So perhaps it is better to recognize that racism plays no part in any serious consideration of either Creationism or Evolution instead of trying to imply the “other” side was guilty while the side one agrees with is on the side of angels?

 

[The_Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Darwin, like almost all Europeans of his time, assumed Europeans were superior. His theory gave him no reason to believe so; he took it as a given.

Ergo, sacred Darwinian Evolution had no racism in it?

Hysterical exaggeration won’t help you now. “Sacred Darwinian evolution” is the paranoid imagination of fundamentalists. You might as well say “boogyman.”

Which is it? Darwin was personally a racist, but his theory was not?

Right. Darwin was considered a liberal on race, because his views were far more progressive than most for his day. But his theory was not in the least racist.

Does that make him complicit?

In the sense Abraham Lincoln was “complicit.” In fact, Lincoln was not anti-slavery enough for Darwin.

Or was he at least an accomplice here?

He asserted that other races had a right to dignity and freedom. If you think that makes him an “accomplice”, then I think I see your difficulty.

No. In fact, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan showed that eugenic idea were scientifically insupportable

I believe I said “some”. Not “all.”

I guess it would be up to you to show that some major Darwinian scientists were supporting eugenics.

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Of course, there are people who kill and torture in the name of God, just as some did it in the name of science. This is not a reflection on Christianity. When one is evil, anything can be used as an excuse.

My point, I believe. However you do seem, whether you intend it or not to want to blame racism on creationists and deny the fact that Eugenicists did tend to take their theories from Darwin,

No. Darwin’s theory offers no comfort for racists. Indeed, as you learned, racism was rampant among anti-Darwinians.

Barbarian on racism among creationists:
Probably so. But consider what happened to Watson when he made a racist statement, and what happened to Henry Morris for a much stronger statement of racism.

Not all creationists are racists. Far from it. But they have tolerated it among their leaders.

And so have evolutionists.

Watson’s example shows just the opposite. But show me one major creationist who objected to their leader slandering black people.

You can’t explain it away.

You’ve offered us nothing to explain away. You’re arguing by mere assertion. I’m showing you facts that demolish your assertions.

Nor can you deny “Social Darwinists” were inspired by normal Darwinism.

No. Darwin himself denounced social Darwinism. It was a foolish misinterpretation of Darwinism as “might makes right.” In “The Descent of Man”, Darwin explicitly denounces such things.

Say some Creationists tolerate racism, and it is a reasonable statement (just like “some Evolutionists.”).

No. As you learned, racism is rare among evolutionists because the theory has shown that there are no biological human races.

Say “Creationists” (in general) and you are guilty of a fairly gross stereotype.

As I said, most creationists aren’t racists. But if you can name one major creationist leader who denounced Henry Morris for his slander against blacks, I’d be pleased to hear about it.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Still, Eugenics was inspired from Darwinism, even if Darwin would have repudiated it. It is a shameful reality. Just like there were some racists who were creationists.

So, when the Nazis, inspired by a Christian leader, initiated the Holocaust, that is a reflection on Chrisitanity? How so?

So perhaps it is better to recognize that racism plays no part in any serious consideration of either Creationism or Evolution instead of trying to imply the “other” side was guilty while the side one agrees with is on the side of angels?

We’ll know that, when you show me a major creationist who denounced Morris for his claim that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Did you even read the article I linked to?

Yep. Your confusion is in thinking that because you can identify populations in the human race, these constitute biological races.

In fact, you are as likely to be a close match to a New Guinea Highlander, as you are to be one for your next door neighbor. There is more variation within any sort of “race” you might define, than there is between those “races.” That being so, the notion of biological human races is foolish.

On the other hand, some marker genes can provide very useful tracing for ancient migration. Calvari-Sforza has done some amazing work tracing ancient migrations into Europe. But he would laugh at your idea of biological races.

Old biological concepts of race no longer provide scientifically valid distinctions. …
American Society of Physical Anthropologists

As an ergonomist, do you study skull structure and dentition?

Right. Have to, if you’re designing usable and healthy workstations. Dentition isn’t that big a thing, but jaws are.

Racial traits are not just limited to bone length.

Perhaps you should read up on what anthropometry is about.

 

[redneck22]

Thanks for your replies.

Why is Evolution called ‘The theory of evolution’ if it is a scientific fact?

Because there is no evidence “of” evolution, just evidence that is "interpreted’ as supporting the Theory of evolution.

The Theory of evolution is the explaination of how man came about biologically, (from a “simple” cell) but there is no evidence of this ever happening.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

According to evolution humans evolved in Africa, so all humans are of African descent.

Why is that offensive? Dark skin is advantageous in a hot climate like Africa in order to reduce skin cancer. Dark skin is a beneficial adaptation.

Charles Darwin was an anti-slavery campaigner. He did have some common nineteenth century racial attitudes, but in terms of the time he was progressive on such issues.

In Darwin’s title the word “races” means ‘subspecies’ or ‘variant’. Humans are hardly mentioned at all in “On the Origin of Species”. Even if Darwin were racist that does not impact the correctness or not of his theory. Darwin, Marx, Hitler and Stalin all thought that 1 + 1 = 2; should we stop accepting mathematics?

No. Darwin campaigned against slavery. He was a nineteenth century English gentleman and did have many attitudes common to his social circles - he probably thought that the English were generally superior to all other people, especially to the French.

He would certainly be right on that one - it’s not *our *fault we are better than everyone else ​

Sorry - couldn’t resist.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Arian heresy is a very appealing one and the early Church rightfully fought against it tooth and nail as it represents Christ as something less than He is.The Arian heretics are all head and no heart which means they can be swayed by arguments which look reasonable even though they may be extremely vacuous and dangerous as they do not have the intuitive intelligence to ‘test’ ideas and conclusions .The general atmosphere that prevails presently is exceptionally close to but not identical with that heretical condition insofar as people know this by way of a scientific heritage that was once a wonderful facet within Christianity is now rotting it from the inside and attacking it from the outside and Christians are carried away by the hypocrisy in finding a common ground between science vs religion as Church authorities are not doing their job.The Arian taint shows itself among empiricists and their supporters among Christians as a ‘different way of knowing’ or “religion tells us how to go to heaven and science tells us how the heavens go”.

Now,I have already presented,in another thread,the text of Darwin in terms of his ‘eureka’ moment borrowed directly from an essay on racial supremacy by Thomas Malthus and the exact same reasoning employed to appeal to Germans on the grounds of supremacy.The natural trajectory of ‘survival of the fittest’ does have an ending and if the millions of death via the gas chambers is not enough for you to go back and look at why Darwin’s illegal transfer of a racial document to biological evolution is not an affront to human decency never mind a basis of contention with Christ and Christianity then we are dealing with an altogether different matter.

The greatest difficulty of the Arian heresy is spotting it ,the great Catholic author of the middle ages knew all too well how it manifests itself and empiricism is simply another variation on the theme -

“Now, nothing is so comfortable and pleasant to nature, as a free, careless way of life, therefore she clings to that life, and takes enjoyment in herself and her own powers, and looks only to her own peace and comfort and the like. And this happens most of all, where there are high natural gifts of reason, for that soars upwards in its own light and by its own power, till at last it comes to think itself the true Eternal Light, and gives itself out as such, and is thus deceived in itself, and deceiving other people along with it, who know no better, and also are thereunto inclined.”

Theologia Germanica

I could explain to you in a thousand ways,technical,historical ,procedural and just plain common sense why Darwin’s adaption of a racial document is purely anti-scientific but I already know that anybody reading it will immediately know that it is.

It is up to Christians to do their best to prevent the highly popular ‘two ways of knowing’

Explain, please ? Thank you.​

that is beginning to pop up as a means to resolve science vs religion for no man can serve two masters or they will end up serving the wrong one.

Is there a bit of confusion here between​

• Arian - holders of a certain Christological doctrine
• Aryans - members of an ethnic group
  thesmileysite.com/images/smilies/0062.gif

Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t see the connection between Arianism & Darwin

 

[redneck22]

Is this true? I think I have heard of this before but I wasn’t sure. Is it true that Darwin used Evolution as a support theory to hate people of colour? And if so, how is this supported by Evolution?

Does Evolution say that African people are somehow less than their European counterparts?

You need to review his writings in “Descent of Man” Charles Darwin “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p.236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla.”

But this philosophy prevails with modern scientist like Dr James Dewey Watson the co-discoverer of DNA. His racist remarks here cause a fury.

 

[The_Barbarian]

You need to review his writings in “Descent of Man” Charles Darwin “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p.236.), will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla.”

Darwin was merely observing that Europeans were killing and enslaving other peoples at a rate that would soon lead to extinction. He didn’t consider that we would soon become more civilized.

He considered it an evil. Unlike most creationists of the time, he opposed slavery, and argued that all men, regardless of race, deserved freedom and dignity.

Modern scientists are rarely racists, because it has been shown that there are no biological human races. But as late as 1992, a leading creationist was still proclaiming the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of blacks.

But this philosophy prevails with modern scientist like Dr James Dewey Watson the co-discoverer of DNA. His racist remarks here cause a fury.

Exactly. He lost his job, and was castigated by his fellow scientists. But when the director of the largest creationist organization wrote a book about the inferiority of blacks, not one prominent creationist so much as disagreed with him.

This is another important distinction between science and creationism.

 

[oriel16]

Certainly not. Matters of skin color and nasal configuration are incredibly fast to adapt in the human genome. The fairskinned people up in the cold climates needed all the vitamin D they could absorb, for example, and melanoma is far more rare among dark-skinned people.

Of course, some traits, like sickle cell anemia, lactose intolerance, Tay-Sachs, various immunities, tendencies to alcoholism and migraine and insanity (particularly in isolated populations, like say, the Western Irish),.

Oh this is just too funny ! yet I have to point on that this is exactly the approach Darwin took and applied it to biological evolution wholesale.It is not bad science but anti-scientific never mind the implications of national racial characteristics.Your harmless reference actually existed as a national policy barely 60 years ago with catastrophic consequences but those following the line of thinking made their home in racial hate to justify their extermination of an identifiable group of people through ‘survival of the fittest’.If Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution is God’s purpose for creation then we inhabit a nightmare but that only expopses how silly people actually are when they are indoctrinated into the belief that ‘empiricism’ is science instead of the stupid Arian variation that it is.

The great Polish Pope had a chance to present his fellow countryman Copernicus as a beacon of Christian thinking instead of taking the unfortunate step in apologising about Galileo but it is this Pope who has the real chance to atone for his nation and show Christians that scientific investigation was once spectacular facet within Christian tradition and nothing like the empiricists would have it.The German Pope has to walk in the shoes of Christ now instead of Peter to set this right but he has the words of his fellow countryman to rely on -

“Now, since the life of Christ is every way most bitter to nature and the Self and the Me (for in the true life of Christ, the Self and the Me and nature must be forsaken and lost, and die altogether),
therefore, in each of us, nature hath a horror of it, and thinketh it
evil and unjust and a folly, and graspeth after such a life as shall be most comfortable and pleasant to herself, and saith, and believeth also in her blindness, that such a life is the best possible. Now, nothing is so comfortable and pleasant to nature, as a free, careless way of life, therefore she clingeth to that, and taketh enjoyment in herself and her own powers, and looketh only to her own peace and comfort and the like. And this happeneth most of all, where there are high natural gifts of reason, for that soareth upwards in its own light and by its own power, till at last it cometh to think itself the true Eternal Light, and giveth itself out as such, and is thus deceived in itself, and deceiveth other people along with it, who know no better, and also are thereunto inclined.” Theologia Germanica

passtheword.org/DIALOGS-FROM-THE-PAST/theogrm1.htm

 

[rossum]

Because there is no evidence “of” evolution, just evidence that is "interpreted’ as supporting the Theory of evolution.

You have misunderstood the meaning of ‘theory’ in a scientific context. Have another look at what you said:Because there is no evidence “of” gravity, just evidence that is "interpreted’ as supporting the Theory of gravity.

The Theory of evolution is the explaination of how man came about biologically, (from a “simple” cell) but there is no evidence of this ever happening.

There is a great deal of evidence, it is just that creationist sites do not usually mention it.

rossum

 

[oriel16]

Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t see the connection between Arianism & Darwin

The empirical/Arian approach to creation is the problem as opposed to Darwin as the symptom of the problem.Put focus on trying to overturn , tone down or promote Darwin’s ‘cause’ for evolution and the game is already over as is true scientific investigation.

Biological evolution always sat well within geological evolution as
the strata contained the history of the planet in terms of
biology,geology,climate conditions or catastrophic events that
reshaped the configuration of life on the planet.There is still no
need for a ‘cause’ required and certainly not the centerpiece which is basically an adaption of an essay on human racial supremacy dumped into biological evolution wholesale.It is not bad science,it is anti- scientific insofar as it takes biological evolution out of its symbiotic relationship with every other discipline (geology,astronomy,climatology ect) and turns it into an exercise in forensics or reduces life to a branch of chemistry.

This era with its distinctly Arian tone simply cannot grasp why many scientists and Church authorities fought against the Arian tendency and it must do so again.I can understand the betrayal the Pope must have felt when Galileo tried to pin this Arian outlook on the pontiff but at least that Pope was wise enough to look through the narrative characters and see the unfair insinuation mouthed against the fictional ‘Simplicio’.

“In the long run my observations have convinced me that some men, reasoning preposterously, first establish some conclusion In their minds which, either because of its being their own or because of their having received it from some person who has their entire confidence, impresses them so deeply that one finds it impossible ever to get it out of their heads. Such arguments in support of their fixed idea as they hit upon themselves or hear set forth by others, no matter how simple and stupid these may be, gain their instant acceptance and applause. On the other hand whatever is brought forward against it, however ingenious and conclusive, they receive with disdain or with hot rage–if indeed it does not make them ill.” Galileo

 

[DavWan]

So, when the Nazis, inspired by a Christian leader, initiated the Holocaust, that is a reflection on Chrisitanity? How so?

We’ll know that, when you show me a major creationist who denounced Morris for his claim that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people.

I find your arguments the same regardless of the site you make these arguments on, the errors tend to be the same too, unfortunately:

1. 
   *]Denial of any errors of Darwinists under the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. Any errors promoted by followers of Darwin are written off as "Not really Darwinist.
   *]Argument from Silence fallacy when it comes to those believing in Creationism (which I don’t believe in, by the way. I believe Evolution is more probable so long as it does not exclude God) by saying that because you are unaware of Creationists openly renouncing some person (who most have likely never heard of) that they support the views.
   *]Ad Hominems against those who question Darwinism. “Hysterical”, “Unreasonable” “Exagerated” and so on.
   *]Tu Quoque when it comes to “sins of Creationists” and “sins of Evolutionists”
   *]Failure to distinguish between references to the past and to the present. [You seem to be under the impression I was saying Evolutionist supporters *today support this, when I did not]
   *]Employment of the Amphiboly, taking a meaning that differs from what the poster is using it for.
   
   If you want people who were Darwinists and supported Eugenics, try reading Eugenics and Other Evils by GK Chesterton, written when Eugenics was considered a very real science. In this book, you will find Darwinist scientists who were given credibility at the time, but challenged by Chesterton.
   
   Consider Francis Galton for example, a Darwinist and a Eugenicist. Also a relative of Darwin. (He disproved Darwin’s idea of Pangenesis, btw)
   
   Of course Darwin did seem to have some ideas that could demonstrate some agreement with Galton:
   
   darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F937.1&pageseq=167
   

   With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

   The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.(Descent of Man, page 168-69)

   Modern Evolution does not accept this of course, but it certainly was accepted by Darwinists then. Indeed, this does seem to demonstrate a belief that could indeed lead one to the Nazi “ideals.”
   
   So it seems one can’t exclude racism from some Darwinists, unless someone wants to employ the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

 

[Camron]

My point, I believe. However you do seem, whether you intend it or not to want to blame racism on creationists and deny the fact that Eugenicists did tend to take their theories from Darwin, whether or not he would have repudiated it.

It seems that both sides could potentially use their own theories to promote the crimes of racism.

But what does it matter if neither position actually bases their ideas on racism itself?

Some people have used the Bible to promote racism too, but I have no intention of listening to their silly opinions on this.

If we’re going to get to the heart of the matter we need to separate the theories from the opinions of those who superimpose their own opinions onto the theories in an attempt to gain some form of scientific legitimacy.

One might be able to do a study to see which group has tended to adhere more often to racist attitudes over the years…and maybe draw a connection there perhaps. But all this other peripheral dialogue about racism being connected with theories of our origins seems to be a big waste of time to me, and really distracts from the core discussion. We know that racism existed well before the theory of evolution emerged. We also know racism is bad…actually, it’s evil.

So perhaps another thread could be started regarding “Theories of our Origins and Racism”. That way a more balanced discussion could happen which doesn’t specifically target evolution?

 

[Sideline]

It seems that both sides could potentially use their own theories to promote the crimes of racism.

But what does it matter if neither position actually bases their ideas on racism itself?

Some people have used the Bible to promote racism too, but I have no intention of listening to their silly opinions on this.

Really good points.

I am reminded of the many people who went out and killed someone after reading A Catcher in the Rye.

Are we to condemn Salinger for trying to promote homicide? I don’t.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I find your arguments the same regardless of the site you make these arguments on,

Perhaps this is a new concept for you, but the truth doesn’t change when you go somewhere else.

1. Denial of any errors of Darwinists under the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

Don’t see how. For example, I pointed out that Darwin, according to today’s ethics, would be considered a racist. I also reminded you of at least one case where an evolutionary scientist was a racist. Do you even bother to read the posts?

Any errors promoted by followers of Darwin are written off as "Not really Darwinist.

As you learned, racism is contrary to Darwinian theory, since the modern theory has shown that there are no biological human races. Hence, by definition, racism can’t be Darwinian.

1. Argument from Silence fallacy when it comes to those believing in Creationism (which I don’t believe in, by the way. I believe Evolution is more probable so long as it does not exclude God) by saying that because you are unaware of Creationists openly renouncing some person (who most have likely never heard of) that they support the views.

Watson was promptly criticized by other scientists and lost his postion as a result of his racist statments. Morris continued unchallenged as the head of the largest creationist organization. Those are telling facts. If you have something to add, I’m sure we’d all be pleased to see it.

1. Ad Hominems against those who question Darwinism. “Hysterical”

I think references to “Sacred Darwin” and the like are obviously hysterical exaggerations. If you don’t, perhaps that’s a clue for you.

1. Tu Quoque when it comes to “sins of Creationists” and “sins of Evolutionists”

Perhaps you don’t know that “Tu Quoque” means. Almost all Europeans, Darwinist or not were racists in Darwin’s day. But as the cases of Watson and Morris show, that’s not how it is today.

1. Failure to distinguish between references to the past and to the present. [You seem to be under the impression I was saying Evolutionist supporters today support this, when I did not]

Punnett and Morgan were Darwinians prior to WWII who even then denounced eugenics.

1. Employment of the Amphiboly, taking a meaning that differs from what the poster is using it for.

See above. Isn’t that what you just did?

If you want people who were Darwinists and supported Eugenics, try reading Eugenics and Other Evils by GK Chesterton, written when Eugenics was considered a very real science.

Let’s take a look…

Consider Francis Galton for example, a Darwinist and a Eugenicist. Also a relative of Darwin. (He disproved Darwin’s idea of Pangenesis, btw)

Interestingly, Galton, among his other disagreements with Darwinian theory, thought that Darwin believed acquired traits could be passed on through blood, something Darwin had not written.

Of course Darwin did seem to have some ideas that could demonstrate some agreement with Galton:
**Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. **(Descent of Man, page 168-69) (your source)

This seems precisely contrary to eugenic belief. As you know, about 40 years later, Darwinists showed Dalton’s belief’s to be in error as far as eugenic principles were concerned.

Modern Evolution does not accept this of course, but it certainly was accepted by Darwinists then.

No. As you see, Dalton and Darwinists differed on this from the start. At first on ethical grounds, and later also on the grounds that it was scientifically insupportable.

Indeed, this does seem to demonstrate a belief that could indeed lead one to the Nazi “ideals.”

Given that about 90% of the “Final Solution” was recommended by Martin Luther, and that the Nazis freely credited him with inspiring their activities, Occam’s razor intervenes.

So it seems one can’t exclude racism from some Darwinists, unless someone wants to employ the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

The difference, of course, is the reception Watson got, compared to that of Morris. This is an important difference between science and creationism.

 

[oriel16]

If we’re going to get to the heart of the matter we need to separate the theories from the opinions of those who superimpose their own opinions onto the theories in an attempt to gain some form of scientific legitimacy.

But that is exactly what Darwin did,his ‘eureka’ moment is based on national supremacy with a sprinkling of ‘laws’ attached to the essay and he basically says if Malthus idea is true between civilised and savage nations then it must also be true for biological evolution !.

“One day something brought to my recollection Malthus’s “Principles of Population,” which I had read about twelve years before. I thought of his clear exposition of “the positive checks to increase”—disease, accidents, war, and famine—which keep down the population of savage races to so much lower an average than that of civilized peoples. It then occurred to me that these causes or their equivalents are continually acting in the case of animals also… because in every generation the inferior would inevitably be killed off and the superior would remain—that is, the fittest would survive.… The more I thought over it the more I became convinced that I had at length found the long-sought-for law of nature that solved the problem of the origin of species.” Charles Darwin

I mean,how clear can he possibly be even if it is an anti-scientific approach to evolution ?.

The Arians simply don’t get it,no matter how hard they try,they simply cannot see Darwin’s ‘cause’ contains an undercurrent of national supremacy that does not lead to admirable conditions for biological evolution and a study of it but to the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

I am not calling into question the empiricists who are busy imposing ’ causes’ on terrestrial and celestial phenomena,I am questioning the Christians for their support of something which is shocking to those who have the basic skill of being able to read.

 

[mlchance]

**Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. **(Descent of Man, page 168-69)

Counterpoint by Darwin himself:
We civilized men . . . do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. . . . Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Sounds like eugenics to anyone who knows what eugenics sounds like.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Namesake]

Counterpoint by Darwin himself:
We civilized men . . . do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. . . . Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Sounds like eugenics to anyone who knows what eugenics sounds like.

– Mark L. Chance.

You really ought to quote the next paragraph…

“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.”