• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Darwinism lead to bigotry?

Peter Grimm said:
Actually, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the thread topic, genius. Talk to Redress and get back to me, because he seems to be the only one with the reading comprehension to have seen the forest for the trees at this point.

The question was: is it possible to admire someone who is or was blatantly racist or otherwise evil?

The thread has nothing to do with the validity of evolution or science in general. Geez.
Click to expand...

Then the answer is "yes". People are not all one thing or the other. Woodrow Wilson did great things for gender equality, but he sold the country to the highest bidder. I hate his guts, but I see that he did good things. Andrew Jackson was blatantly racist towards American Indians, but he did great things for the country. Jesus (if he existed at all) was a preacher who espoused ultra-orthodox Judaism, which is pretty evil. Emperor Qin was a brutal warlord, but he did unite China, especially in culture and language. HP Lovecraft was really racist, but his writings are still fantastic. Einstein tried circumvent the scientific method to allow for god in his equations, but he was still a genius.

But that's not the name of this thread. This thread is "Does Darwinism lead to bigotry?" The answer to that question is "no". Make up your mind about what you're asking.

Lastly, agreeing with the sentiment of his time does not make Darwin a racist. On the Origin of Species was published two years before an entire government sprang up based on the idea that race-based slavery was acceptable and necessary. The passage you quoted is tame compared to some of the spew that is posted on this very forum. It's tame compared to the actions of Andrew Jackson and HP Lovecraft. If your position were valid, then it would be impossible to respect pretty much every person who ever lived.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Whatever, the point is one should be skeptical of any theory put forth by a known racist.
Click to expand...

The person who puts forth a theory is entirely irrelevant to the actual laws of nature.
 
Anagram said:
That seems contrary to your position before. If you agree ideas should rise and fall on their own merit, than you can see that the Theory of Evolution should be divorced from the character of Darwin.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone reading this right now, no offense, is capable of fully discerning the evidence for themselves and making the determination whether the idea of evolution should "rise or fall," so to speak.

There is a bit of "who do you want to trust" involved, even though people aren't comfortable admitting that fact.
 
Is there even a modern scientist who 100% subscribes to Darwin's beliefs as written at the time Darwin was alive? Because AFAIK, those theories have been extensively modified over the years based on relevant evidence.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I don't think anyone reading this right now, no offense, is capable of fully discerning the evidence for themselves and making the determination whether the idea of evolution should "rise or fall," so to speak.

There is a bit of "who do you want to trust" involved, even though people aren't comfortable admitting that fact.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your assumption. I do not think it takes an exorbitant amount of study to understand and accept the Theory of Evolution, even if they don't understand the finer points of it.

Although, even going by your "who do you trust" argument, it wouldn't really come down to Darwin, but the thousands of people who have studied and written about evolution since him, still rendering his specific character irrelevant.
 
Paschendale said:
Then the answer is "yes". People are not all one thing or the other. Woodrow Wilson did great things for gender equality, but he sold the country to the highest bidder. I hate his guts, but I see that he did good things..
Click to expand...


Wilson was also a MONUMENTAL racist..........
 
Northern Light said:
Is there even a modern scientist who 100% subscribes to Darwin's beliefs as written at the time Darwin was alive? Because AFAIK, those theories have been extensively modified over the years based on relevant evidence.
Click to expand...



Darwin's theories led to the extermination of most of the Jews in Europe, and served as the excuse for the sterilization of over 60,000 Americans.

Some "modification!"
 
Anagram said:
I disagree with your assumption. I do not think it takes an exorbitant amount of study to understand and accept the Theory of Evolution, even if they don't understand the finer points of it.

Although, even going by your "who do you trust" argument, it wouldn't really come down to Darwin, but the thousands of people who have studied and written about evolution since him, still rendering his specific character irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It's an important point.

If they accept evolution without fully understanding the ins and outs of the evidence, then they accept it on the basis of the authority of the scientific community.

That said, Darwin is a big part of that community, especially as it relates to evolution. So, you can't really pass his racism off as unimportant.
 
Northern Light said:
Is there even a modern scientist who 100% subscribes to Darwin's beliefs as written at the time Darwin was alive? Because AFAIK, those theories have been extensively modified over the years based on relevant evidence.
Click to expand...

I guess you could say the theory has "evolved."

Hyuck hyuck
 
Darwinism no longer exists, if it ever did, beyond being an epithet coined by religious dinosaurs.
 
Peter Grimm said:
It's an important point.

If they accept evolution without fully understanding the ins and outs of the evidence, then they accept it on the basis of the authority of the scientific community.

That said, Darwin is a big part of that community, especially as it relates to evolution. So, you can't really pass his racism offals unimportant.
Click to expand...

I think you can though. Dawin's importance in the scientific community is smaller than you make it seem. His ideas have been tested, expanded on, and modified so much since his original work. I think someone would be making a huge mistake if Darwin's racism played any more than a tiny, miniscule part, in their disbelief of evolution.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is a difference from believing the basic theory of evolution and accepting Darwin's racism as part of that theory. That argument makes as much sense as blaming Catholicism for Hitler's beliefs, since he often claimed to be working for God as well. Hitler was indeed a messed up racist and bigotted fascist moron, but to ascribe any one influence to creating a Hitler is absurd. One may well accept some of major tenets of Judaism and Christianity without a frim belief in talking snakes, donkeys and bushes.

Hitler's religious beliefs and fanaticism
Click to expand...


I do so hate to disagree with a fellow Texan, but Hitler was heavily influenced by AMERICAN PROGRESSIVES........

Eugenics and the Nazis -- the California connection
 
ecofarm said:
In geologic/evolutionary time scales, skin color is nothing. In a few (hundred?) generations, skin color will change according to latitude. One's family could go back and forth between white and black and white again in a matter of, what, a couple hundred thousand years.
Click to expand...

Actually, iirc, it takes around 20,000 years for a homogenous population to change from light to dark, or vice versa, assuming they stay in the same location and the natural physicial changes occur in response to environmental conditions.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Darwinism no longer exists, if it ever did, beyond being an epithet coined by religious dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Dinosaurs were religious?

Who knew............
 
Anagram said:
I think you can though. Dawin's importance in the scientific community is smaller than you make it seem. His ideas have been tested, expanded on, and modified so much since his original work. I think someone would be making a huge mistake if Darwin's racism played any more than a tiny, miniscule part, in their disbelief of evolution.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Darwin have more than one statue built in his honor?
 
Peter Grimm said:
Doesn't Darwin have more than one statue built in his honor?
Click to expand...

He does. And his works may have been the catalyst to get evolutionary biology going, but his work itself, and his character isn't really important to the modern Theory of Evolution anymore, other than that of its history.
 
lizzie said:
Actually, iirc, it takes around 20,000 years for a homogenous population to change from light to dark, or vice versa, assuming they stay in the same location and the natural physicial changes occur in response to environmental conditions.
Click to expand...

Don't you feel a bit weird stating speculation as if it's fact?

Modifying your statement with "scientists believe" would be advisable.
 
Anagram said:
He does. And his works may have been the catalyst to get evolutionary biology going, but his work itself, and his character isn't really important to the modern Theory of Evolution anymore, other than that of its history.
Click to expand...

Either way...if someone accepts Evolution without fully understanding the ins and outs of the evidence, they do so based on the authority of the scientific community. That is most people.

That is irrefutable.

Even if you could throw Darwin under the bus, his disciples were even worse.
 
Anagram said:
He does. And his works may have been the catalyst to get evolutionary biology going, but his work itself, and his character isn't really important to the modern Theory of Evolution anymore, other than that of its history.
Click to expand...

Like I said, that "work" led to the justification used for the murder of multi-millions..........

On the basis of both race, and genetics, becoming targets for enriching "The fittest."

The fact that he was an avowed racist helps one to understand how one of his relatives was a founder of the eugenics movement here in America, which led to Americans financing what became the holocaust in Germany......

The man who Progressives choose to celebrate says so much about what so many of them really are at their core....
 
ttwtt78640 said:
An interseting historical tidbit indeed, but what does that have to do with Darwin or the theory of evolution? ;)
Click to expand...


Darwin's theory was the justification for the Eugenic's movement.
 
Wayno said:
Like I said, that "work" led to the justification used for the murder of multi-millions..........

On the basis of both race, and genetics, becoming targets for enriching "The fittest."

The fact that he was an avowed racist helps one to understand how one of his relatives was a founder of the eugenics movement here in America, which led to Americans financing what became the holocaust in Germany......
Click to expand...

All true, but irrelevant to the science behind evolution.

The man who Progressives choose to celebrate says so much about what so many of them really are at their core....
Click to expand...

I think it's possible to celebrate what a man has done, without fully embracing everything about that person. That allows us to celebrate the achievements of many of the founding fathers, and other who people today would likely not be in complete agreement with.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Either way...if someone accepts Evolution without fully understanding the ins and outs of the evidence, they do so based on the authority of the scientific community. That is most people.

That is irrefutable.
Click to expand...

In away that's true, but again I think it is very possible for a layperson to understand much of theory of Evolution, even if not all the fine details that it is rational to accept it.

Even if you could throw Darwin under the bus, his disciples were even worse.
Click to expand...

How is the modern scientific community worse than Darwin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom