Is Darwinism racist?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Now one can debate if Darwin was a racist, but remember that the general belief was that blacks WERE inferior to whites. That was generally accepted theory. Now one might use evolution to account for this "truth", but in fact what happened would have been using it to acount for a percieved fact which is was not true. Everyone here knows better of course because each generation is superior to the last and holds them accountable to a standard which did not exist in prior days, but that is another topic even if relevant to this one.

Yet does the fact that they tried to use it as argument for a racist idea make it less valid? Would me claiming white people are better because the Bible doesn't mention blacks or Asians specifically mean the Bible should be forbidden? Because that is what Riprorin seems to be claiming.

Hitler-did this-and-he-said-he-was-a-christian-therefore-christians-are-hitlers thinking makes exactly as much sense as saying that Stalin-and-Mao-were-athiests-and-killed-tens-of-millions therefore-athiests-are-blood-lusting-mass-murderers. Generalizations like this will really get both sides embarrased in public if those views are brought before real, live, thinking people.

See the first point. Why is it that you cannot take the act of a single person to condemn Christianity, but can you take the ideas of a single person concerning his own superiority (which at that time was shared by 99.9% of his white, Christian fellows) and use that to condemn everything he did or said?

I just got up, so maybe I am missing something. The premise of Riprorins argument is fallacious. Darwinism cannot be racist no more than you can be going blue miles an hour on the highway. The fact that someone tried to make is so is, well, stupid.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider Now one can debate if Darwin was a racist, but remember that the general belief was that blacks WERE inferior to whites. That was generally accepted theory. Now one might use evolution to account for this "truth", but in fact what happened would have been using it to acount for a percieved fact which is was not true. Everyone here knows better of course because each generation is superior to the last and holds them accountable to a standard which did not exist in prior days, but that is another topic even if relevant to this one.

Yet does the fact that they tried to use it as argument for a racist idea make it less valid? Would me claiming white people are better because the Bible doesn't mention blacks or Asians specifically mean the Bible should be forbidden? Because that is what Riprorin seems to be claiming.

Hitler-did this-and-he-said-he-was-a-christian-therefore-christians-are-hitlers thinking makes exactly as much sense as saying that Stalin-and-Mao-were-athiests-and-killed-tens-of-millions therefore-athiests-are-blood-lusting-mass-murderers. Generalizations like this will really get both sides embarrased in public if those views are brought before real, live, thinking people.

See the first point. Why is it that you cannot take the act of a single person to condemn Christianity, but can you take the ideas of a single person concerning his own superiority (which at that time was shared by 99.9% of his white, Christian fellows) and use that to condemn everything he did or said?

I just got up, so maybe I am missing something. The premise of Riprorins argument is fallacious. Darwinism cannot be racist no more than you can be going blue miles an hour on the highway. The fact that someone tried to make is so is, well, stupid.

Yes, but Creationism is so much better than Darwinism and should be taught at schools instead!!1! You have to understand that only their opinion is right, and that facts do not matter!