Evolution is racist!!!!! (Page 15)

kittybobo34: Darwins theorys simply describe the science behind evolution. People can use that knowledge for good or evil, its not the knowledge that is evil, or the fact of evolution.

Adam Southworth: I don't think we can always choose how knowledge effects us. Facts are conceptually separate from who we are and how we behave, but they shape our character and guide our actions. A different context begets different people and behaviour. "If you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you."

Adam Southworth: I think we know what Darwin meant by "Australians". He was talking about higher and lower races. He thought Europeans were a higher race. Different groups shaped by different environments will have different strengths and weaknesses. As I said, human IQ differences naturally flowed from the theory of evolution I learned at university. There was a time when that same university followed Darwin's example and measured student's skulls to test the theory that different races/sexes had different sized brain cases.

Adam Southworth: Do you think knowledge of human skull shapes and IQ differences, among other such differences, should be more widely known, kitty? You think these amoral facts could as likely lead somewhere you'd want as not?

BlueShirt1: "Darwins theorys simply describe the science behind evolution. People can use that knowledge for good or evil, its not the knowledge that is evil, or the fact of evolution." - Kittybobo


This is eerily reminiscent of the gun lobby's motto: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people".


Guns DO kill people (unless you wanna argue that tsunamis and earthquakes don't kill people either).

Likewise, certain theories/ideas might be considered an incitement to violence. And it's hard to think of a scientific theory that has been the cause of more misery and suffering than Darwin's "survival of the fittest" drivel -- science's answer to leaving a loaded AK-47 in a children's playground.


Darwin's "bulldog", Thomas Henry Huxley, for example, tells us that we learn from science . . .

"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites."


And now Kitty responds, "Hey, Darwin didn't hurt anyone. He just left the loaded gun there".

BlueShirt1: Read Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man". (as Adam noted above: all about measuring skull capacities and all that)

Ideas are not dangerous?

Think again.

BlueShirt1: "Adolf Hitler, one of the world’s most notorious eugenicists, drew inspiration from California’s forced sterilizations of the “feeble-minded” in designing Nazi Germany’s racially based policies.' - MJ59


The eugenics movement was started, pretty much single-handedly, by an Englishman named Francis Galton.

Oh, and he was the cousin of Charles Darwin.

Coincidence, ya think?

BlueShirt1: Comments made by people like Kittybobo above are eerily redolent of what we hear from the religious wackos:

"Hey, so what if the Bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". The Bible never burned anyone at the stake".

BlueShirt1: MJ59 quoted the following (previous page) . . .

Even if Hitler believed that evolutionary theory justified his destructive and oppressive vision, this does not undermine the theory's basis; what people do with an idea has no bearing on the scientific validity of that idea. Using Hitler's supposed belief in evolution as an argument against evolutionary science is an example of the logical fallacy of an argument from adverse consequences, suggesting that we should not accept the theory of evolution because it could lead to the kind of racist views perpetuated by Hitler. It is also an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, implying that because Darwin's theory came into being before Hitler's racism, the former necessarily caused the latter. Even if there were connections between the theory of evolution, social Darwinism and the Holocaust, this does not imply that evolution is a dangerous theory, only that Hitler perverted the theory to justify his beliefs and actions.



Gosh, seems we're all plagued by logical fallacies, eh?

Well, take this . . . "Even if there were connections between the theory of evolution, social Darwinism and the Holocaust, this does not imply that evolution is a dangerous theory . . ."

Assuming there ARE (and I'd say it's screamingly obvious that there are) connections between the theory of evolution, social Darwinism and the Holocaust, then it DOES imply that evolution, or at least the Darwinian version thereof, is a dangerous theory. If there are connections between the theory of evolution, and massive suffering has been incurred thereby, then it IS a dangerous theory.

What could be more obvious?

I mean FFS, it's like saying "Even supposing there are links between the theory of white supremacy and the lynching of blacks, this does not imply that white supremacy is a dangerous idea."

Dude!!!!!!!!

BlueShirt1: It's like saying "That loaded AK-47 is perfectly safe . . . as long as you just sit there and look at it. It's not a dangerous weapon."

BlueShirt1: Or to paraphrase Kitty . . .

"Hey, we scientists don't kill anyone. We just produce the weapons, that's all".

Alex1963: The last few posts are lacking relevence to the topic.

BlueShirt1: The OP was a joke. Ask The Hating.

BlueShirt1: MJ59 also quoted this . . .

"Using Hitler's supposed belief in evolution as an argument against evolutionary science is an example of the logical fallacy of an argument from adverse consequences, suggesting that we should not accept the theory of evolution because it could lead to the kind of racist views perpetuated by Hitler.:




In short, what this fella is saying is "Just because millions suffered because of it is no reason to doubt the validity of the idea itself."


Personally, I can think of no better reason to question the validity of an idea.

kittybobo34: One could say the same of religion, It has been the source of violence with the Shia's vs the Sunni,, the Christian crusades, the hundu vs the muslems,, so we should ban religions.

Adam Southworth: I don't question evolution because of its effects. If as I believe there is a direct connection between evolution and the holocaust, the murder of Poles, Jews, Russians, among others, that wouldn't be a reason to doubt the theory. Truth exists regardless of its effects. I simply don't think people are entitled to ignore hard realities.

BlueShirt1: @ Kitty

No, just ban stupid ideas that are an incitement to violence.

Like say, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and "Survival of the fittest".

BlueShirt1: I don't question evolution either, Adam.

What I have misgivings about is the central tenet of the Darwinian version thereof, i.e. "survival of the fittest".

Few ideas have led to more suffering.

kittybobo34: banning stupid ideas is exactly the argument on Facebook and social media right now, with so many screaming about censorship.

Adam Southworth: I think those ideas are too widespread to ban now. In any event, I wouldn't ban those ideas. I want people to hear the Bible and Darwin as they are, not as they'd like them to be.

BlueShirt1: Many lives could have been saved, Kitty, without this "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" idiocy.

And exactly the same applies to other stupid ideas like "survival of the fittest".

kittybobo34: Survival of the fittest is the law in nature,, can't change that

BlueShirt1: It's not a law of nature; it's a law of language.

It is tautologically true.

And easily abused.

BlueShirt1: To borrow the jargon of possible world semantics, can you imagine a world where the less fit outsurvive the more fit?



Ans: There are none. (Just as there are no worlds where triangles don't have three sides)

Because if they did, they would, by definition, be MORE fit.

BlueShirt1: It's exactly analogous to asking "Can you imagine a sport where winners don't win?"

Can you?