Is Darwinism racist?

[Riprorin]

Might it not be more rational to want kids to learn about the implications of evolution and natural selection in a classroom setting where they can learn that while differences in populations do exist, the differences are in trivial things like skin color and not in intellect, temperment, character?

Dave, get real. Schools can't even tell the truth about the "peppered" moth.

If schools could solve the problem of racism, why haven't they done it yet?



edit: fixed typo

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

If you were trying to prove that (Louisiana State Representative) Sharon Weston Broome has some logical basis for wanting to halt teaching of evolution, you haven't really done so.

Quote: African American State Representative Sharon Weston Broome charged that, "Darwin's ideas on how humans evolved are racist and the key reason for race problems [and] provide the main rationale for racism." As Broome logically concluded, "If evolution has provided the main rationale for racism, and we are teaching our children evolution in schools, then correspondingly we are teaching them racist principles."

Dave, where in this statement does it say anything about "halting the teaching of evolution"?

Do you deny that Darwin's theories and personal views on race have led to racism and unspeakable atrocities such as the Hollocaust?

It's certainly implied by her (illogical) conclusion that teaching evolution is teaching racism. What other inference could you draw from it? And from your statements it appears that you agree with her.

You've ignored my examples that most any scientific teaching can be used for destructive purposes, and also ignored my point that someone who fully understands natural selection and evolution also understands that neither by itself proves that any particular group is superior to any other.

The existence of theories of natural selection and evolution didn't cause the Holocaust, the Nazis did.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Might it not be more rational to want kids to learn about the implications of evolution and natural selection in a classroom setting where they can learn that while differences in populations do exist, the differences are in trivial things like skin color and not in intellect, temperment, character?

Dave, get real. Schools can't even tell the truth about the "peppered" moth.

If schools could solve the problem of racism, why haven't they done it yet? edit: fixed typo

I didn't say teaching evolution and natural selection properly would remove racisim, I said teaching it properly was preferable to leaving students in ignorance and unable to see the flaws in corrupted versions of natural selection promoted by hate groups.

By the way, the Creationist writer you quoted in debunking the pepper moth story has some kind words for natural selection:

Given an appropriate source of variation (for example, an abundance of created genetic information with the capacity for Mendelian recombination), replicating populations of organisms would be expected to be capable of some adaptation to a given environment, and this has been demonstrated amply in practice.

Natural selection is also a useful explanatory tool in creationist modelling of post-Flood radiation with speciation, for example [ see Q&A: Natural Selection ]. Even Milton says in his introduction that he accepts that natural selection happens, so there seems to have been a lot of wasted words.

Link so your apparent rejection of natural selection is out of step with both the scientific community and the rational Creationist / Intelligent Design scholars.

 

[Riprorin]

You've ignored my examples that most any scientific teaching can be used for destructive purposes, and also ignored my point that someone who fully understands natural selection and evolution also understands that neither by itself proves that any particular group is superior to any other.

Can scientific teachings be used for destructive purposes? Of course. What's to debate?

Does natural selection and evolution prove any particular group is superior to any other? Not directly.

Yet before Darwinian evolution was popularized, when most people talked about "races," they were referring to such groups as the "English race," "Irish race," etc.

Darwin 's theory suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of local conditions.

Darwin himself believed that blacks occupied an evolutionary position between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man (caucasians).

What do you think the impact of this has been?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Racism and discrimination has been around for centuries (if not millenia) before Darwin was even born. People will grab any method or reasoning available to prove their right. It's a matter of wanting to feel superior, which is easier vs another religion/race than vs someone of exactly the same background.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You've ignored my examples that most any scientific teaching can be used for destructive purposes, and also ignored my point that someone who fully understands natural selection and evolution also understands that neither by itself proves that any particular group is superior to any other.

Can scientific teachings be used for destructive purposes? Of course. What's to debate?

Does natural selection and evolution prove any particular group is superior to any other? Not directly.

Yet before Darwinian evolution was popularized, when most people talked about "races," they were referring to such groups as the "English race," "Irish race," etc.

Darwin 's theory suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of local conditions.

Darwin himself believed that blacks occupied an evolutionary position between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man (caucasians).

What do you think the impact of this has been?

Before Darwinian evolution whites were just as capable of considering themselves superior to the "oriental races", "savages", etc.

I would say the impact has been that people who were already racist have attempted to misuse evolution to "prove" superiority just as they've used mathematics, history, measurements of skull shape and size, art, music, literature, Christianity and skin color. As you yourself admit, misuse of a technology does not make that technology evil.

Let me ask you: do you think the current teaching of evolution and natural selection in schools is a bad idea? If so, why?

 

[Riprorin]

Link so your apparent rejection of natural selection is out of step with both the scientific community and the rational Creationist / Intelligent Design scholars.

Dave, interesting but I don't see the relevance.

My topic of the thread is Is Darwinism racist.

Perhaps it is not in and of itself racist but it has certainly led to racist movements and human destruction.

Darwinism begins with the fundamental assumption that the forces of nature alone are adequate to explain everything that exists. In the beginning were the particles, along with blind, purposeless natural laws. Nature created the universe out of nothing, through a quantum fluctuation. Nature formed our planet, with its unique ability to support life and drew together the chemicals that formed the first living cell. And nature acted through Darwinian mechanisms to evolve complex life-forms and, finally, human beings, with the marvels of consciousness and intelligence.

Do I accept this unempirical theory as scientific fact? No. And it shouldn't be taught that way.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
My topic of the thread is Is Darwinism racist.

Perhaps it is not in and of itself racist but it has certainly led to racist movements and human destruction.

And that doesn't mean that Darwinism is racists. Sure, it can be perverted in to some racist idealogy, but in itself, it's not racist, nor was it meant as one.

Darwinism begins with the fundamental assumption that the forces of nature alone are adequate to explain everything that exists. In the beginning were the particles, along with blind, purposeless natural laws. Nature created the universe out of nothing, through a quantum fluctuation. Nature formed our planet, with its unique ability to support life and drew together the chemicals that formed the first living cell. And nature acted through Darwinian mechanisms to evolve complex life-forms and, finally, human beings, with the marvels of consciousness and intelligence.

Do I accept this unempirical theory as scientific fact? No. And it shouldn't be taught that way.

What should they teach instead? That God created man and Earth? YOu are drifting further away from your "is Darwinism racist?"-subject towards "Evolution is wicked and should not be teached in our schools!"

 

[Riprorin]

I would say the impact has been that people who were already racist have attempted to misuse evolution to "prove" superiority just as they've used mathematics, history, measurements of skull shape and size, art, music, literature, Christianity and skin color. As you yourself admit, misuse of a technology does not make that technology evil.

Hmm, let's contrast Darwin's word to the words in the Bible regarding race:

Darwin: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

The Bible: "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." (Acts 17:26)
The Bible does not even use the word "race" in reference to people, but does describe all human beings as being of "one blood".

See a contrast?

 

[Riprorin]

What should they teach instead? That God created man and Earth? YOu are drifting further away from your "is Darwinism racist?"-subject towards "Evolution is wicked and should not be teached in our schools!"

It's a theory and not a fact and it should be taught as such along with other theories.

 

[0roo0roo]

Do you deny that Darwin's theories and personal views on race have led to racism and unspeakable atrocities such as the Hollocaust?

your trolling agenda was obvious from the start. but now you sink this low?

i'll tell you what.... Hitler was no athiest.

apply your twisted logic to that will ya.


aww doesn't fit your agenda.. poor u.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

I would say the impact has been that people who were already racist have attempted to misuse evolution to "prove" superiority just as they've used mathematics, history, measurements of skull shape and size, art, music, literature, Christianity and skin color. As you yourself admit, misuse of a technology does not make that technology evil.

Hmm, let's contrast Darwin's word to the words in the Bible regarding race:

Darwin: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

The Bible: "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." (Acts 17:26)
The Bible does not even use the word "race" in reference to people, but does describe all human beings as being of "one blood".

See a contrast?

Because the men who wrote it had never heard of other races. They did however claim that their God was only the God of the people of Israel.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

What should they teach instead? That God created man and Earth? YOu are drifting further away from your "is Darwinism racist?"-subject towards "Evolution is wicked and should not be teached in our schools!"

It's a theory and not a fact and it should be taught as such along with other theories.

It's the best theory we have and it's lightyears ahead of every other theory out there (yes, including the creationist BS). Evolutionayr theory is by nature (no pun intended) the correct one, since it explains what we see better than everything else and if new data is discovered, it get's updated (something that can't be said about creationism). I think it should be taught at schools, but they should also mention that "some nut-jobs believe that Earth and humans were created by God".

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

I would say the impact has been that people who were already racist have attempted to misuse evolution to "prove" superiority just as they've used mathematics, history, measurements of skull shape and size, art, music, literature, Christianity and skin color. As you yourself admit, misuse of a technology does not make that technology evil.

Hmm, let's contrast Darwin's word to the words in the Bible regarding race:

Darwin: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

The Bible: "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live." (Acts 17:26)
The Bible does not even use the word "race" in reference to people, but does describe all human beings as being of "one blood".

See a contrast?

I'm sure some atheist here can find racist quotes in the bible, that wasn't my point.

Christian belief has been perverted by many over the centuries to declare other races godless, savages, lesser beings etc. and has justified any number of atrocities from the inquistion to giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native American "godless savages" to wipe them out.

But the fact that Christianity has been used to do evil does not mean that Christianity is itself evil. The fact that many Christians belonged (and still belong) to the KKK does not make Christianity racist.

You've offered nothing to support that evolution and natural selection as taught today in schools is in any way racist. The fact that Darwin personally might have thought himself more highly evolved than an Australian aborigine has no more bearing on modern teaching than the fact that most whites born before 1900 were racists, including the Christians. [ ed - typos ]

 

[Riprorin]

i'll tell you what.... Hitler was no athiest.

Oh, you're telling me that Hitler actions were driven by his Christian beliefs.

Who's sinking to new lows here?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
I'm sure some athiest here can find racist quotes in the bible, that wasn't my point.

It says so in the Bible that jews are the "Gods chosen people". Clearly jews are elevated aboe other races, so maybe that could be considered racist.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

i'll tell you what.... Hitler was no athiest.

Oh, you're telling me that Hitler actions were driven by his Christian beliefs.

Who's sinking to new lows here?

did i say christian? whos grasping at straws now?


religion leads to death.

got it?


brought to you, by your own logic.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

i'll tell you what.... Hitler was no athiest.

Oh, you're telling me that Hitler actions were driven by his Christian beliefs.

Who's sinking to new lows here?

You will find it in Mein Kampf.- "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work."

Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I--Adolf Hitler--will conclude."

In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work. "

Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

From this page, first to pop up when typing in 'Hitler religion' in Google

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

i'll tell you what.... Hitler was no athiest.

Oh, you're telling me that Hitler actions were driven by his Christian beliefs.

FWIW: Tomas de Torquemada's actions were driven by his Christian beliefs. And I'm sure there are plenty of other examples (Crusades?

 

[Riprorin]

You've offered nothing to support that evolution and natural selection as taught today in schools is in any way racist.

Apparently, some Blacks think so and it has clearly spawned genocide and numerous racist movements.

Anyway, I think we've beat this to death.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It was fun demolishing Riprorin's "arguments" with logic and counter-examples, but with his Creationist / Intelligent Design beliefs out in the open this will inevitably turn into yet another religion thread.

It is interesting to see the Creationists taking a new tack: since they couldn't get Creation "Science" into classrooms and are having a tough time pushing the retooled "Intelligent Design" version, they're now trying to remove teaching of evolution and natural selection by calling them racist. If you can't win with an open and logical debate, try an ad hominem attack.

 

[Riprorin]

FWIW: Tomas de Torquemada's actions were driven by his Christian beliefs. And I'm sure there are plenty of other examples (Crusades?

Hitler called himself a Catholic. So?

Can you point out to me where in the Bible Christians are commanded to kill Jews?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

You've offered nothing to support that evolution and natural selection as taught today in schools is in any way racist.

Apparently, some Blacks think so and it has clearly spawned genocide and numerous racist movements.

Just because some blacks feel like that, does not make it true. Hell, some blacks feel that the US government owes the trillions of dollars! But just because they think like that, does not make it true.

Some whites believe that they are superior to blacks. By your logic, they are correct.

And like it has repeatedly been said: Darwinism is not racist. The fact that some people twist it to their own perverted agenda does not make it racist. Bible has been used as a excuse to persecute jews ("they killed Christ!"), does that make Bible racist?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

FWIW: Tomas de Torquemada's actions were driven by his Christian beliefs. And I'm sure there are plenty of other examples (Crusades?

Hitler called himself a Catholic. So?

Can you point out to me where in the Bible Christians are commanded to kill Jews?

Torquamada was a Christian. He was directly accountable to the Vatican.

Of course they don't tell them to kill jews (after all, Jews are the Gods chosen uber-race). But there are several passages where God tells his followers to kill other nationalities (races?).

EDIT: and of course, the Bible is full of text telling how women are inferior to men. It can be debated whether bible is racists, but it's clearly sexist.

 

[Riprorin]

It was fun demolishing Riprorin's "arguments" with logic and counter-examples, but with his Creationist / Intelligent Design beliefs out in the open this will inevitably turn into yet another religion thread.

Dave, I'm an open minded guy and you've clearly demonstrated your superior debating skills by giving me a sound thrashing.

You presume to know what I believe; what do you believe and why? Convince me that I should adopt your beliefs so that I can escape my ignorance.