Evolution is racist!!!!! (Page 6)
MJ59: As for Darwin’s actually being racist, in The Descent of Man, Chapter 21 – General Summary and Conclusion, he says:
Through the means just specified, aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species. Nevertheless all the races agree in so many unimportant details of structure and in so many mental peculiarities that these can be accounted for only by inheritance from a common progenitor; and a progenitor thus characterised would probably deserve to rank as man.
Get that? All human races (or so-called sub-species) are one species — man. This was a radical position at the time. He also says:
The main conclusion arrived at in this work, namely, that man is descended from some lowly organised form, will, I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. But there can hardly be a doubt that we are descended from barbarians. The astonishment which I felt on first seeing a party of Fuegians on a wild and broken shore will never be forgotten by me, for the reflection at once rushed into my mind — such were our ancestors. … He who has seen a savage in his native land will not feel much shame, if forced to acknowledge that the blood of some more humble creature flows in his veins.
Clearly, by embracing the idea of barbarians and savages as his ancestors, Darwin has none of the concerns that seem to bedevil creationists, who want no biological connection with … them.
MJ59: Claim CA005:
Evolution promotes racism.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.
Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.
Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.
Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.
Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:
George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,
The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became a blank.
In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).
During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,
that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.
Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).
None of this matters to the science of evolution.
Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html
Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/aig_and_racism_response.htm
Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.
Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.
Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.
(Edited by MJ59)
MJ59: Oh — “human evolution promotes racism.” But what about the bible? See Curse of Ham, in which Wikipedia says:
The explanation that black Africans, as the “sons of Ham”, were cursed, possibly “blackened” by their sins, was advanced only sporadically during the Middle Ages, but it became increasingly common during the slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of African labour.
Also, in Curse and mark of Cain, Wikipedia says:
At some point after the start of the slave trade in the United States, many Protestant denominations began teaching the belief that the mark of Cain was a dark skin tone … . Protestant preachers wrote exegetical analyses of the curse, with the assumption that it was dark skin.
The split between the Northern and Southern Baptist organizations arose over doctrinal issues pertaining to slavery and the education of slaves. At the time of the split, the Southern Baptist group used the curse of Cain as a justification for slavery.
zeffur: Lol@"Some of these, such as the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species."
Dude apparently wasn't aware the races could breed...
Yeah, that's just the kind of genius you all need to be putting your undying faith in..
Darwin in today's society: imgur.com/gallery/mDvd8Lz
(Edited by zeffur)
zeffur: re: " But what about the bible? See Curse of Ham"
That ^^ is a red herring & straw man con that is designed to mislead & blame "The Bible" for something that is not rational. Bad people who do bad things which are inconsistent with the teaching of The Bible aren't spokes people for The Bible any more than bad cops are spokes people for good cops... Why you atheists continue to try to play that card over & over & over is truly a mystery...
There is however just slavery described in The Bible. It occurred when some people who were dying from a famine made a deal to be the life-long servants of others who were willing to sustain them so that they wouldn't perish. That's a deal that one willingly makes & it is a valid form of slavery just as indentured servitude is a valid form of slavery--although usually for a limited amount of time in that case. There are also some women who marry & agree to be devoted to their husband & family for their whole life (which is another agreed upon form of slavery). So, there are legit forms of slavery that some people willingly agree to participate in...
Obviously, slavery that forces people against their will to be slaves & brutalizes them to keep them as slaves & gets the laws established to support such slavery is the form of slavery that is morally wrong & should never be legally permitted.
(Edited by zeffur)
zeffur: wow..this is terrifying, if true...m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=469714827369307&id=100029923818631
zeffur: Of course FB removed it--they are part of trying to destroy free speech that counters the agenda that they've chosen to support:
Try this link: https://rumble.com/vd9jtn-covid-19-bioweapon-dr.-lee-merritt.html
MJ59: All i could get:
A form of zeffer that partake in both the streamer CaptainZef's community and the furry community
Dan : I love CaptainZef 's stream but I don't feel like I belong in the community because I'm a furry
Rhonda : Oh don't worry, you are welcomed here, but you will just be called a zeffur instead of a zeffer.
Dan : Great! Now I can spread my love of big titty bat women to the zeffer fan base.
by TheDeafZeffer September 06, 2018
zeffur: Zeffur is a phonetic variation of the word zephyr which is:
Adam Southworth: The word "racist" has so many definitions which have nothing to do with morality I don't much value that word anymore. Why should I respect a word which is consistently used to attack one group to the advantage of others?
I think whether evolution is "racist" depends on your definition of "racist." If a theory which explains differences between groups is racist, then evolution is "racist". I simply care more about reality than whether my beliefs conform to the zeitgeist. Like the Scottish poet Robert Burns, I try to hold truth and human beings in mind, but I don't lie or gloss facts because I disagree with them.
People want to believe Darwin was a champion of equality. This is not entirely true. He was more egalitarian than some, but not others. The co-discoverer of evolution Alfred Russell Wallace, an exponent of guided evolution, was less "racist" than Darwin in this respect. Unlike Darwin, Wallace believed that God breathed a soul into all humans. He saw new races he encountered as strange and different, not superior or inferior. Contrast Alfred Wallace's "The World Of Life" with the full title of Darwin's best known work: “The Origin of Species By Means Of Natural Selection: Or The Preservation Of Favoured Races In The Struggle For Life."
Darwin believed in distinct human races:
“Chapter 7 On the Races of Man” – Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man: chapter 7, p 194
He also thought the European race was superior:
“Nor is the difference slight in moral disposition between a barbarian, such as the man described by the old navigator Byron, who dashed his child on the rocks for dropping a basket of sea-urchins, and a Howard or Clarkson; and in intellect, between a savage who uses hardly any abstract terms, and a Newton or Shakespeare. Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations.” – Charles Darwin: The Descent of Man: chapter 3, p 86
There are differences between human groups. I took a course on evolution at university part of which dealt with IQ differences. Most scientists estimate that between 40%-80% of IQ is governed by genetics - the clay shaped by evolution. I think my professor was a good person, but he didn't dismiss facts. He thought environmental factors like education and nutrition could explain a lot but not all differences between groups. I later read about other biological differences. Not all these differences flatter Europeans. There are, for instance, biological reasons which, it not a complete explanation, help explain why black people win roughly 66% of Olympic gold medals. Evolution will help explain these differences.
Evolution might teach us that nature is a universal battle, that too many creatures are born to survive, and that death is a creative force. Evolution might also encourage us to think more in terms of groups than individuals, make us sensitive to the processes which create and destroy species, and spread concepts like invasive species, population dynamics and group selection. This is not necessarily a hothouse habitat for anti-racism.
(Edited by Adam Southworth)