Does Darwinism Promote Racism?

Hi to my TimesDaily Forum Friends,

Is Darwinism directly related to racism? Does Darwinism support eugenics and euthanasia? What links Charles Darwin to Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and grandmother of all abortions? They felt and taught that all other races were inferior to the caucasian white race. They supported programs of eugenics to weed out the inferior races -- which has a direct link to the holocaust of the Jews and the holocaust of the Australian Aborigines during the 20th century.

What were the Darwinist putting into American public school text books in the 1920s? One such text book, by a Darwinist named George W. Hunter, entitled ‘A Civic Biology’ taught students:

“At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or Negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America."

Does this sound familiar? Does this remind anyone of Hitler's Master Race? Does anyone wonder why we do not want Darwinist influence in our public schools? The book above was being used in public schools at the time of the Scopes Monkey Trial (1925) in Tennessee. Now we see what motivated that teacher, John Scopes -- and set the stage for the ACLU to produce this travesty.

Read more about this in the article "So What Prompted Ben Stein To Produce ‘Expelled’?" by Bret McAtee, Sunday, March 23, 2008: http://backwaterreport.com/?p=888

To know more about Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood) and her strong racism, read the article, "The Truth About Margaret Sanger, How Planned Parenthood Duped America." http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Most folks are not familiar with the treatment of the Aborigines of Australia, the true native Australians just as the misnamed Indians are the true Native Americans. But, that prejudice was as bad as the hatred toward the Jews -- and for no better reason.

About fifteen years ago, Dory and I had a pastor friend and his wife from Australia visit us. They brought with them several young girls, one of whom was an Aborigine. I could have mistaken this young lady for an American caucasian; she was a fair skinned beautiful young lady -- with an amazing voice. We took them to our church on Sunday and she sang for our congregation. I cannot imagine anyone hating one so lovely, so talented, and so Christian. Yet, folks do -- and Darwin help set the stage.

God created all men equal; our Declaration of Independence declares that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yet, Darwinism, the ACLU, and the NEA teach differently. Who is right -- Darwin or God? I say the God who created all men equal is right -- in all ways.

Think about it.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net

Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!

Attachments

Photos (1)
Original Post
If you read about the Dutch in the 1600's during the time their culture was heavily influenced by the Reformation (Christianity), they treated the Austronesian people in their colonial possession in Taiwan as equal Dutch citizens and even encouraged single Dutch men to intermarry with the Austronesian Christian women so to better learn their languages and cultures. You can see Taiwanese from a certain region in west Taiwan that obviously have Dutch ancestry.

But post-Darwin in the late 1800's, the English and remaining Dutch instituted Apartheid in South Africa.

Connection?
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi to my TimesDaily Forum Friends,

Is Darwinism directly related to racism? Does Darwinism support eugenics and euthanasia?


Bill, why would you judge any scientist or religion by a misguided disciple? Surely you see the flaw in this argument. I could spend the rest of my life trotting out case after case of the perverted actions performed in a god's name, the christian god if you like, and many with his blessing or at his command. Say the word and I can fill volumes.

Shall we go there?
Racialism and other forms of discrimination have been defended by every form of "scholar" and apologist under the sun, from mystical nationalism of the Nazis to the eugenics movement's advocates (supposed "progressives" as well as Nazis). "Social Darwinism" is well alive in many right wing circles.

Perhaps reading George M. Frederickson's seminal and rather exhaustive study of racism, The Black Image in the White Mind is the best treatment of such varied techniques of suborning prejudice.

The equation of social Darwinism to overt racism is rather like equating Herder's nationalism to racism and the Nazizeit. That is to say, the German mystical nationalists used Herder's work to justify the "natural superiority" of a mythic "Aryan Race." Similiarly, people misread Darwin and thwart its basic premise to the same ends: namely their own perverted ones.

Black Image is one of the most important works in the intellectual historiography canon, up there with The Virgin and the Dynamo however, people only are introduced to it in graduate school, to their misfortune.
Any science or religion may be perverted to prove a cause or belief. In the New World, Spanish religious figures defined the Indians as homunculi -- a being that appears human, but is not, to justify slavery and worse. The mark of Cain was justified to subject blacks as inferior to others. Both beliefs justified in the name of religion.

Madame Blavotsky, founder of Theosophy, predicted the coming of a superior aryan race that led to the NSDAP and the horrors that unleashed upon the world. Incidentally, Helen Keller became a believer in Theosophy and Lenin used some of its tenets in his brand of Marxism.

The communist used Darwin to support the rise of the new soviet man. But, only ended up producing many more of the old Russians drunks.

The Catholic church for all it dogma is quite at home with Darwin and his theory. With the new mapping of the human genome, we know there is only about 0.1 percent difference in the difference races DNA. Rather humbling to all those goose steppers and the shaven head bunch or the black muslims or the Hindutva for that matter.
quote:
Originally posted by DeepFat:
*shakes head in disbelief at Bill* DF

Hi Deep,

You, the great evangelist from the church of atheism -- have nothing to say? While I disagree with several of the others; at least they had something to add.

Yet, all you have is another atheistic "cutesy.'

Oh, well, water finds it level -- even muddied water.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi to my TimesDaily Forum Friends,

Is Darwinism directly related to racism? Does Darwinism support eugenics and euthanasia?


Bill, why would you judge any scientist or religion by a misguided disciple? Surely you see the flaw in this argument. I could spend the rest of my life trotting out case after case of the perverted actions performed in a god's name, the christian god if you like, and many with his blessing or at his command. Say the word and I can fill volumes.

Shall we go there?

Hi Miami,

While I am happy that you see Darwin as perverted; we are not judging science by him. We are judging evolution by him -- and his very well known racists teachings and by his very well known racists friends -- specifically Margaret Sanger.

Keep in mind that Darwin is Evolution. And I do not deny that many who claimed to be Christian have done evil -- but no one Christian defines Christianity. Jesus is Christianity just as Darwin is Evolution. Jesus is not racists; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives. The same cannot be said of Darwin and Sanger.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
We are judging evolution by him -- and his very well know racists teachings and by his very well known racists friends -- specifically Margaret Sanger.

Keep in mind that Darwin is Evolution. And I do not deny that many who claimed to be Christian have done evil -- but no one Christian defines Christianity. Jesus is Christianity just as Darwin is Evolution. Jesus is not racists; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives. The same cannot be said of Darwin and Sanger.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Bill,

A few points:

1.) The adjective you're looking for is "racist." "Racists" is the plural form of a noun.

2.) Darwin is not evolution. Put in another form, Darwin does not equal evolution.

3.) You suggest Christianity is not racist. But is it sexist? Sexism subjugates and thus negatively affects more than half of the population.

e
Humans and chimps share about 98.7 percent (originally thought to be 98.9 percent) of DNA. The miracle is that we are not hairy and swing from trees, not that chimps can't build cathedrals.

Darwin was an man who postulated a theory of evolution of all things, including man. He was also a deacon of his church. As science progressed problems with some of his ideas were found in error, but not his basic premises. New discoveries back up the idea of a progression of the species and extinction. Jefferson didn't believe in the theory of extinction, that God wouldn't allow it. He was wrong -- no mammoths in the US.

Evolution is a tool that God uses to allow free will in His universe. Nothing I write will change what either evolutionists or creationists believe. Have at it brethren! I'm letting the bears fight this one out. I'll settle for a rug.
Bill's initial post exemplifies what is called "selective" sourcing." Using the proper sequence of sources, carefully selected, one can "prove" that A=Ω. Did and do some racialists and ultranationalists misuse Herder, Darwin, and even the Bible? Yes.

Using Bill's "logic," I could produce an essay on how the Grimm Brothers led directly to the Anschluss and invasion of Poland, and then to the Manhattan Project and from thence to nuclear profliferation and from there status quo sine bellum with China which leads to the rise of WalMart.

So, Germanic linguistics leads to cheap Chinese trinkets in US stores. Mystery solved!

I have an old conference paper that I presented in 2002 in which I treat the 6 discrete modes of rearing slave children. In it, I avoid addressing the psychological ramifications of childhood slavery, as that has been treated to death, especially by Wilma King, however, I do insist that the white masters seeing white and black/bond children develop side by side with the average rate of development exactly the same in every area from walking to talking forced the "inferior racially" theory of white domination to be false before their eyes, hence they fell back on the legalistic, cultural, historical and religious apologies.

Biologically speaking, there is no such thing as "race," as a separation of species. The differences between what we term "races" is so superficial that they would not be worth mentioning were it not so obvious that it is a mere mechanism for differentiation. It is odd that we speak of the "markers" of race as beign skin color, when in reality, it is a combo of hair texture and color, skin color, eye folds or lack thereof, and "scissor shaped incisors".

There are Hopi and Navajo and other First Nations who it is hard to tell if they are Japanese or Siberian or what. We have no idea what "race" the ancient Egyptians were before Grecian and Roman contact and then Arab. Some Ethopians are extremely "caucasoid," and look very "Arab," while others are clearly from Central or Western African rootstock.

Oddly enough, the word "race" comes from the French version of the Latin "radix" which means "root." The is the same root in "race," "radical" when referring to exponents, and the roots of a plant.

What is race? It is concentrated genetics in open view in biology. In sociology and politics, it is much, much more.

What is my "race?" Family ancestry says mostly Celtic, as evidenced by my names, but my blood type is B- which is exceedingly rare except in the Mediterranean Coast in both Africa and Eurasia, yet family lore insists that my ancestors came from Cornwall, Wales, and SE England and Scotland. My hair looks like a mass of bird's nest gone awry until I hack it off in disgust. I tan like a Puerto Rican in one week of decent sun. Yet, I am White. The census and the school records and society say that I am.

Well, we call my dog Mother Maybelle a "rat terrier" for lack of a better term, loves to chase small game, but no wiry coat, shiny and longish like a spaniel, but black and white like a Jack Russell. I don't care what you call her, just call her "Good Girl" and give her a piece of pizza.
quote:
Evolution is a tool that God uses to allow free will in His universe. Nothing I write will change what either evolutionists or creationists believe. Have at it brethren! I'm letting the bears fight this one out. I'll settle for a rug.


I never thought of it like that. Good post, Howard.
quote:
Originally posted by Neal Hughes:
Bill's initial post exemplifies what is called "selective" sourcing." Using the proper sequence of sources, carefully selected, one can "prove" that A=Ω. Did and do some racialists and ultranationalists misuse Herder, Darwin, and even the Bible? Yes.

Very well said.

The original post made me think of this photo. I don't believe for a second that all Christians agree with this fellow, while he did back his arguments with biblical quotes and profess his faith in Jesus. At the same time, I don't think Bill actually believes that those who see value in Darwin's work are all racists.

quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi to my TimesDaily Forum Friends,

Is Darwinism directly related to racism? Does Darwinism support eugenics and euthanasia?


Yes, it was once believed by many that the theory of evolution supported a superior race of humans. Subsequent test confirmed those primitive people's worst nightmare: That there is no discernible difference between races from an evolutionary standpoint.

"Scientists" once believed the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the solar system.

Scientific discovery also confirmed that we all are related to a single person that lived 60 to 80 thousand years ago. Wrap your head around that, Bill.

Edit: My point being that evolutionary science has proved rather conclusively that we are all brother's and sisters. Thanks be to Darwin.
quote:
Originally posted by Neal Hughes:
My hair looks like a mass of bird's nest gone awry until I hack it off in disgust.


Haw! Neal, you never fail to attract and keep my interest. Heck, I usually learn something as well. Keep it up. Please.
quote:
It is odd that we speak of the "markers" of race as beign skin color, when in reality, it is a combo of hair texture and color, skin color, eye folds or lack thereof, and "scissor shaped incisors".


Wow! The shape of a person's teeth is indicative of their race? That's very interesting. This could be a great topic of learning all by itself. I would like to know more, Neal. You've teased us with a little bit of interesting knowledge.
A strong correlation between "shovel shaped" incisors and those with a lot of "Mongolian" aka East Asian ancestry is made. Ditto for a different texture of ear wax and the eye folds are too obvious.
The entire history of "race" facinates me: I find it equally interesting and repelling. But if you skin and scalp a person, cut out the eye sockets and muscles around them and then throw away the teeth, you cannot determine "race" except by DNA and then you don't know what proportions of markers show up in skin/hair/eye color, etc.

Gerns, Guns, and Steel by Jared Diamond explores how geography more than anything else has affected human culture. For example, he asks a simple question "Why didn't Zulu warriors riding zebras sweep up into Eurasia?" The conclusion is that the zebra can't be domesticated, and Eurasia is the center of empire because of the combination of weather, native animals and plants that were domesticated and therefore where advanced civilization first flourished -- not that any culture is more or less "advanced" mentally or artistically than another, but that the "things" that Eurasians had at their disposal led to urbanization, metallurgy, and the close proximity of living with animals led to a great immunity to many diseases for Eurasians as an inheritance.
Indeed, what is amazing is that Diamond is an ethnobiolologist who was in New Guinea often on field work when a man asked him "Why have you got so much cargo and us not?" It took him several years and a book, but he tracked him down and said, "Here is why we have so much cargo and you not: geography and cattle, hogs, poultry, metal ore, and horses."
quote:
Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Jefferson didn't believe in the theory of extinction, that God wouldn't allow it. He was wrong -- no mammoths in the US.



Didn't you know HR, those are either bones that God spread around just for the heck of it, or the woolys were late for the ark.
Hi Daniel,

My original post said, "Jesus is not racist; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives."

And you replied, "Really Bill, Matthew 15:26 'But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.'"

I can see that you do not have an understanding of this Scripture passage -- or you want to pull one verse out and try to use that to condemn Jesus Christ.

Let's take a look at the full Scripture passage:

Matthew 15:22-28, "And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, 'Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.' But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, 'Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.' But He answered and said, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, 'Lord, help me!'

"And He answered and said, 'It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she said, 'Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus said to her, 'O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.' And her daughter was healed at once."

First of all, the Greek word used for "dogs" in this verse is not a derogatory term used to degrade someone; but instead is the word kynarion (kü-nä'-re-on), meaning a little dog or a puppy, a household pet.

As Pastor David Guzik of Calvary Chapel explains: "When Jesus called her one of the little dogs, He used little as a term of endearment. This softened the traditional Jewish slur towards Gentiles, which called them dogs in the most derogatory sense."

Pastor David goes on to explain: "The woman responds with great faith. She admits her low estate, and did not debate the issue when Jesus called her one of the little dogs. She asked Jesus to deal with her on her own low level - and so she received from Jesus. No wonder Jesus said, O woman, great is your faith!"

So, was Jesus being a racist and was He putting this woman down, belittling her? No. He was speaking to her gently, as one would to a beloved family pet -- drawing out fully her faith; her unwavering faith that Jesus Christ could and would heal her daughter.

Matthew 15:28, "Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once."

Oh, that your faith and my faith will be this strong.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net

Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!

Attachments

Photos (1)
quote:
Originally posted by dialectic.:
quote:
Originally posted by Neal Hughes:
Bill's initial post exemplifies what is called "selective" sourcing." Using the proper sequence of sources, carefully selected, one can "prove" that A=Ω. Did and do some racialists and ultranationalists misuse Herder, Darwin, and even the Bible? Yes.

Very well said.

The original post made me think of this photo. I don't believe for a second that all Christians agree with this fellow, while he did back his arguments with biblical quotes and profess his faith in Jesus. At the same time, I don't think Bill actually believes that those who see value in Darwin's work are all racists.

Hi Dialectic,

Thank you for that clarification. I never intended to say that all who follow Darwin's theory of evolution are racist.

What I did say is that Darwin himself, along with his friend, Margaret Sanger, were racist. History supports this. They both felt and taught that all other races were inferior to the caucasian white race -- and they both supported programs of eugenics to weed out the inferior races. While there are many Darwinians who may still believe this way; I was speaking of Darwin.

And, I showed you an example from a school text book stating that the caucasian race is superior. So, this Darwinian concept was being taught in our schools.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Let's take a look at the full Scripture passage: [...]

First of all, the Greek word used for "dogs" in this verse is not a derogatory term used to degrade someone; but instead is the word kynarion (kü-nä'-re-on), meaning a little dog or a puppy, a household pet.

[...]
So, was Jesus being a racist and was He putting this woman down, belittling her? No. He was speaking to her gently, as one would to a beloved family pet -[...].



Bill,

You're kidding, right?

You really fail to see that being treated like a "beloved family pet" is NOT, in fact, the same as being acknowledged as a person with full human status?

If this distinction is truly that difficult for you to grasp, I suggest you don a flea collar and dine on a delicious can of Alpo this evening. Perhaps it would serve as a gentle reminder to you of the difference between the realities of the two.

e
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Miami,

While I am happy that you see Darwin as perverted; we are not judging science by him. We are judging evolution by him -- and his very well known racists teachings and by his very well known racists friends -- specifically Margaret Sanger.

Keep in mind that Darwin is Evolution. And I do not deny that many who claimed to be Christian have done evil -- but no one Christian defines Christianity. Jesus is Christianity just as Darwin is Evolution. Jesus is not racists; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives. The same cannot be said of Darwin and Sanger.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Bill, are you passing judgment on Darwin here? I'm pretty sure you understood what I said. Darwin's didn't pervert his observations or contributions or science. Some others may have on occasion, some atheist, some racists, and as we clearly see, radical christians.

The fact is, is that all animals, minerals and vegetables aren't equal.
Here is a one paragraph abstract of a very recent treatment of Darwin and race. It shows how Darwin was very much a product of the Victorian Era and its utter belief in the superiority of Western Civilization, although Darwin was a fervent crusader for anti-slavery.
The leap from "social" evolution from "biological" evolution was not clear in Victorian eyes, and this view was reinforced by ultranationalists and others who view even today The West as the apex of human achievement, although they could not last a week in a Papuan village without the largesse of the "savages."

Citation: STEPHEN G. ALTER, "RACE, LANGUAGE, AND MENTAL EVOLUTION IN DARWIN’S DESCENT OF MAN", Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 43(3), 239–255 Summer 2007.

Abstract:
quote:
Charles Darwin was notoriously ambiguous in his remarks about the relationship between human evolution and biological race. He stressed the original unity of the races, yet he also helped to popularize the notion of a racial hierarchy filling the gaps between the highest anthropoids and civilized Europeans. A focus on Darwin’s explanation of how humans initially evolved, however, shows that he mainly stressed not hierarchy but a version of
humanity’s original mental unity. In his book The Descent of Man, Darwin emphasized a
substantial degree of mental development (including the incipient use of language) in the
early, monogenetic phase of human evolution. This development, he argued, necessarily
came before primeval man’s numerical increase, geographic dispersion, and racial diversification, because only thus could one explain how that group was able to spread at the
expense of rival ape-like populations. This scenario stood opposed to a new evolutionary polygenism formulated in the wake of Darwin’s Origin of the Species by his ostensible supporters
Alfred Russel Wallace and Ernst Haeckel. Darwin judged this outlook inadequate to the task of explaining humanity’s emergence. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


Darwin is hardly the absolute guide to evolutionary biology in the world. That is like saying that Marx was absolutely correct in every respect regarding economics. No addition, no reinterpretation, no revision or denial required. Case closed. No way! Scholarship does not work that way, nor does human nature. There will be revisionists, those who popularize formerly "lost" theories and writings.

I'm sorry Bill, but posting one exceprt out of one out of date textbook to claim that the sentiment of all other educators then flow unhindered in a straight line to the present is ludicrous -- and bad scholarship on top of it!

The "differentiated other" has existed since we split into tribes, nations, races and empires. The continued use of the "other" as pejorative and scapegoat will continue until the sun swallows us. One can only assume that "scientific" and "religious" explainations tend to be a bit more adequate for supporters to toe their line than just proclaiming "They differ, therefore they are inferior."
quote:
Originally posted by miamizsun:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Miami,

While I am happy that you see Darwin as perverted; we are not judging science by him. We are judging evolution by him -- and his very well known racists teachings and by his very well known racists friends -- specifically Margaret Sanger.

Keep in mind that Darwin is Evolution. And I do not deny that many who claimed to be Christian have done evil -- but no one Christian defines Christianity. Jesus is Christianity just as Darwin is Evolution. Jesus is not racists; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives. The same cannot be said of Darwin and Sanger.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


Bill, are you passing judgment on Darwin here? I'm pretty sure you understood what I said. Darwin's didn't pervert his observations or contributions or science. Some others may have on occasion, some atheist, some racists, and as we clearly see, radical christians.

The fact is, is that all animals, minerals and vegetables aren't equal.

Hi Miami,

I am just saying that both Charles Darwin and his friend, Margaret Sanger, felt and taught that all other races were inferior to the caucasian white race. They supported programs of eugenics to weed out the inferior races.

That is racist. Am I jugding Darwin? No, only his racist belief. And, since the world's view of evolution is defined by Darwin's book; I naturally have drawn the line between his beliefs and his teachings, or his book.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Miami,

I am just saying that both Charles Darwin and his friend, Margaret Sanger, felt and taught that all other races were inferior to the caucasian white race. They supported programs of eugenics to weed out the inferior races.

That is racist. Am I jugding Darwin? No, only his racist belief. And, since the world's view of evolution is defined by Darwin's book; I naturally have drawn the line between his beliefs and his teachings, or his book.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


================================================

Bill, here is some information, from the Darwin wiki, that maybe you weren't aware of. I'm sure this will get you on track with respect to Darwin and his observations. Regards, miamizsun

Human Races

His encounters with the natives of the Tierra del Fuego on his Beagle voyage made Darwin believe that civilization had evolved over time from a more primitive state.
His encounters with the natives of the Tierra del Fuego on his Beagle voyage made Darwin believe that civilization had evolved over time from a more primitive state.

The questions of what "race" was, how many human races there were, and whether they could be "mixed", were key debates in the nascent field of anthropology in Darwin's time. After the American Civil War (1861-1865), the question of race and slavery were brought to the forefront in anthropology in the United States and Europe. Many scientists from the Southern U.S. were publishing long monographs on why the "Negro" was inferior and would soon be driven to extinction by newfound freedom, with an implication that slavery had been not only "beneficial" but "natural". Darwin was a long-time abolitionist who had been horrified by slavery when he first came into contact with it in Brazil while touring the world on the Beagle voyage many years before, and considered the "race question" one of the most important of his day. Darwin opposed the polygenism theory, developed by scientific racist discourse, which postulated that the different human races were distinct species ("polygenism") and were likely separately "created". To the contrary, Darwin considered that all human beings were of the same species, and that races, if they were useful markers at all, were simply "sub-species" or "variants." This view (known as "monogenism") was in stark contrast with the majority view in anthropology at the time, that Polygeny was supported by thinkers of many backgrounds, such as the zoologist, glaciologist, and geologist Louis Agassiz, and by later thinkers who would interpret Darwin's theory to imply that races had been evolved at different times or stages. Darwin's own views of this were that the differences between human races were superficial (he discusses them only in terms of skin color and hair style), and much of Descent is devoted to the question of the human races. Aside from the aforementioned encounter with slavery on the Beagle, Darwin also was perplexed by the "savage races" he saw in South America at Tierra del Fuego, which he saw as evidence of a man's more primitive state of civilization. During his years in London, his private notebooks were riddled with speculations and thoughts on the nature of the human races, many decades before he would publish Origin."
Hi Miamizsun,

The information below does not disagree with what you posted -- but, does expand upon it.

Two excerpts from http://backwaterreport.com/?p=888 :

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although Darwin opposed slavery, he firmly believed that the evolutionary process had created superior and inferior races. He maintained in Descent of Man that human intellectual development was the product of natural selection and that natural selection had produced significant differences in the mental faculties of “men of distinct races.” [See Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, pp.109-110, 160, 201, 216.] In the same book, Darwin disparaged blacks and observed that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans fell “between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla,” indicating that he considered blacks the humans that were the most ape-like. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201] Darwin also predicted that “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin’s thought is difficult to deny.

Eugenics, which was directly influenced by Darwinism took root in America in the early twentieth century — some 33 states adopted forced sterilization programs to prevent the “feeble-minded” and other “defectives” from reproducing. Perhaps the leading lady of the Eugenics movement was the angel of death herself, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler’s director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned “The Negro Project,” her strategy for eliminating the black population. She believed in removing what she called “the dead weight of human waste.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Miami, I am not trying to discredit Darwin; only showing a negative which comes from Darwinism and his evolutionary teachings. By far, I am not the first to notice this.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Miamizsun,

The information below does not disagree with what you posted -- but, does expand upon it.

Two excerpts from http://backwaterreport.com/?p=888 :

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although Darwin opposed slavery, he firmly believed that the evolutionary process had created superior and inferior races. He maintained in Descent of Man that human intellectual development was the product of natural selection and that natural selection had produced significant differences in the mental faculties of “men of distinct races.” [See Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, pp.109-110, 160, 201, 216.] In the same book, Darwin disparaged blacks and observed that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans fell “between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla,” indicating that he considered blacks the humans that were the most ape-like. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201] Darwin also predicted that “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin’s thought is difficult to deny.

Eugenics, which was directly influenced by Darwinism took root in America in the early twentieth century — some 33 states adopted forced sterilization programs to prevent the “feeble-minded” and other “defectives” from reproducing. Perhaps the leading lady of the Eugenics movement was the angel of death herself, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler’s director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned “The Negro Project,” her strategy for eliminating the black population. She believed in removing what she called “the dead weight of human waste.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Miami, I am not trying to discredit Darwin; only showing a negative which comes from Darwinism and his evolutionary teachings. By far, I am not the first to notice this.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill


==============================================

On Darwin and Eugenics....

quote:
Darwin’s theories and writings, combined with Gregor Mendel’s genetics (the “modern synthesis”), form the basis of all modern biology. However, Darwin’s fame and popularity led to his name being associated with ideas and movements which at times had only an indirect relation to his writings, and sometimes went directly against his express comments.

Eugenics

Following Darwin’s publication of the Origin, his cousin, Francis Galton, applied the concepts to human society, starting in 1865 with ideas to promote “hereditary improvement” which he elaborated at length in 1869. In The Descent of Man Darwin agreed that Galton had demonstrated the probability that “talent” and “genius” in humans was inherited, but dismissed the social changes Galton proposed as too utopian. Neither Galton nor Darwin supported government intervention and thought that, at most, heredity should be taken into consideration by people seeking potential mates. In 1883, after Darwin’s death, Galton began calling his social philosophy Eugenics. In the 20th century, eugenics movements gained popularity in a number of countries and became associated with reproduction control programmes such as compulsory sterilisation laws, then were stigmatised after their usage in the rhetoric of Nazi Germany in its goals of genetic “purity”.



Bill, clearly some took Darwin's work and used it to try and justify their own, sometimes twisted, version of how things should be. Religion has been used in the same way.(Back in the day, I'm sure that even good christian people owned slaves and had a hand in their selective reproduction.) As stated above modern Biology gives him a lot of credit too. It is impossible to deny natural selection. It is the basis of selecting a mate. Are people attracted to inferior genetics? Given a choice for a mate, physical attraction plays a great role in the process.

Also, we have fossil evidence of man's evolution, and we see stark differences in human beings today. Can we see differences in physical and mental abilities? Of course, but some feel it isn't politically correct to point such differences. And some cry racism.

Selective breeding of all animals has been around for a long time. We all recognize this as a method of producing superior offspring and prized bloodlines. It would be extremely unlikely for a good looking, healthy young man, to choose a mentally retarded or seriously birth defected mate. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but the vast majority look for good mental and physical health when selecting a mate for reproduction.

Darwin's work was the foundation for today's modern evolutionary theory which has progressed dramatically with the help of current technology and scientific knowledge.

Science, unlike religion, can and will change in light of new evidence. Please keep that in mind when making that comparison.

regards, miamizsun
Please do not mix creation and Evolution. God did not create men and women out of apes. God created the first man out of dirt and water and the first woman was created by one of his ribes and dirt and water. Those of you who want to double check this Refer to Genesis. Evolution and the big bang theory is something those who do not believe in God came up with.
You can show all the data and articals you whish but I will never agree with Darwinism I faught against it in high school and again in college and I will continue to stand for what I believe in. Any person can write an artical and have it published if they so choose to it does not mean they are write with what they say.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×