Does Darwinism lead to bigotry?

[Peter Grimm]

We know that Charles Darwin was a racist, that fact is undeniable.

Darwin's doctrine of evolution depicts the "gorilla" and the "negro" occupying evolutionary positions between the "baboon" and the "civilized (Caucasian) races of man.

According to Harvard University's Stephen Jay Gould, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, (that is, before Darwin) but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Point in case: Hitler was a committed student of Darwin's evolution. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler spoke of "lower human types." He accused the Jews of bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the purpose of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization."

Is it possible to admire someone who was so blatantly racist and evil?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Darwin's doctrine of evolution depicts the "gorilla" and the "negro" occupying evolutionary positions between the "baboon" and the "civilized (Caucasian) races of man.

Can you please show me what you mean here.

So let's get down to business.

What is it you're actually trying to do here?

Are you trying to discredit the theory of evolution because Darwin may have been somewhat racist? W

Which most people were in his time to various extents, although Darwin was against slavery and was against the ill treatment of native people.

The worst that can be said to my knowledge is he valued European civilisation and saw colonisation as spreading its benefits, with the sad but inevitable effect of extermination of savage peoples who did not become civilised. Darwin's theories presented this as natural, and were cited to promote policies which went against his humanitarian principles.

Are you trying to say that if people believe in the theory of evolution they are racist?

What does Hitler have to do with evolution? Only seriously anti-science, anti-evolution, Conservapedia types try to associate Hitler with evolution.

We get it you have a beef with Evolution, but this talk is just silly and ignorant.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Can you please show me what you mean here.

So let's get down to business.

What is it you're actually trying to do here?

Are you trying to discredit the theory of evolution because Darwin may have been somewhat racist? W

Which most people were in his time to various extents, although Darwin was against slavery and was against the ill treatment of native people.

The worst that can be said to my knowledge is he valued European civilisation and saw colonisation as spreading its benefits, with the sad but inevitable effect of extermination of savage peoples who did not become civilised. Darwin's theories presented this as natural, and were cited to promote policies which went against his humanitarian principles.

Are you trying to say that if people believe in the theory of evolution they are racist?

What does Hitler have to do with evolution? Only seriously anti-science, anti-evolution, Conservapedia types try to associate Hitler with evolution.

We get it you have a beef with Evolution, but this talk is just silly and ignorant.

Hang on there. Putting black people on the same level as gorillas, and placing them somewhere between the baboon and the white man is not "somewhat" racist. That is blatant, flagrant racism.

So, that said, let me ask you... What are YOU trying to do by downplaying Darwin's racism?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Hang on there. Putting black people on the same level as gorillas, and placing them somewhere between the baboon and the white man is not "somewhat" racist. That is blatant, flagrant racism.

Can you show me that... can you show me pictures or excerpts from his book that say this?

I have not heard of this.

If you can show me this I will be happy to discuss the subject.

Until then your OP is filled with Conservapedia crap.

 

[Redress]

This thread screams quotes taken out of context.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Can you show me that... can you show me pictures or excerpts from his book that say this?

I have not heard of this.

If you can show me this I will be happy to discuss the subject.

Until then your OP is filled with Conservapedia crap.

Happy to.

Did you know that the full title of Origin of the Species is actually: The Origin. of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life


"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised 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 civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

descent of man pp. 178).

 

[Peter Grimm]

This thread screams quotes taken out of context.

You don't think Darwin was a racist?

 

[Redress]

You don't think Darwin was a racist?

Dunno. It's irrelevant to the modern theory of evolution.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Dunno. It's irrelevant to the modern theory of evolution.

Is it?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Happy to.

Did you know that the full title of Origin of the Species is actually: The Origin. of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life


"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised 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 civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."

descent of man pp. 178).

Let's say you're right because I really can't be bothered to argue the finer points of Darwins world view.

His discoveries which have been subsequently corroborated and enhanced by genetics and fossil evidence are correct in terms of discovering evolution.

Did he have it all right?

Perhaps not.

But believing in evolution does not lead to bigotry because we know that man is one species regardless of colour, race, religion or creed now.

But back then that distinction was beyond most peoples thought processes.

You say he was evil because he may have believed and described these things.

Is it also not equally as evil to view a man as so worthless they are a slave to you based on nothing more than the colour of their skin?

If that's the case we could say many of the founding fathers were evil... and we could ask does Founding Father worship lead to bigotry?

Or do we have to view these figures through the context of their times?

Perhaps so but when it comes to far right conservatives like yourselves... context is often the paramount problem you encounter when trying to form an opinion on a topic.

You're doing what you always do, you use strawmans, halftruths and guilt by association to try to discredit evolution.

You can't, it's fact.

End of story.

Case closed.

Bye bye.

Darwin alone is not nesecary to prove evolution in this day and age.

Not believing in evolution in regards to the biology of life on Earth is like not believing in tectonic plates in regards to geology, you're just never going to get the right answer.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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

 

[Dezaad]

Is it?

Even if Evolution led to racism, that would not make it false. It's truth or falsehood rests solely on its ability to explain the evidence. Period.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Let's say you're right because I really can't be bothered to argue the finer points of Darwins world view.

His discoveries which have been subsequently corroborated and enhanced by genetics and fossil evidence are correct in terms of discovering evolution.

Did he have it all right?

Perhaps not.

But believing in evolution does not lead to bigotry because we know that man is one species regardless of colour, race, religion or creed now.

But back then that distinction was beyond most peoples thought processes.

You say he was evil because he may have believed and described these things.

Is it also not equally as evil to view a man as so worthless they are a slave to you based on nothing more than the colour of their skin?

If that's the case we could say many of the founding fathers were evil... and we could ask does Founding Father worship lead to bigotry?

Or do we have to view these figures through the context of their times?

Perhaps so but when it comes to far right conservatives like yourselves... context is often the paramount problem you encounter when trying to form an opinion on a topic.

You're doing what you always do, you use strawmans, halftruths and guilt by association to try to discredit evolution.

You can't, it's fact.

End of story.

Case closed.

Bye bye.

Darwin alone is not nesecary to prove evolution in this day and age.

Not believing in evolution in regards to the biology of life on Earth is like not believing in tectonic plates in regards to geology, you're just never going to get the right answer.

Interestingly, Jesus Christ doesn't need to be viewed through the context of his times. He lived 2000 years ago.

This is in sharp contrast to Darwin, Muhammed, the founding fathers, and a number of other so called great men who have come and gone since then.

Who would you rather place your trust in?

 

[Jetboogieman]

Interestingly, Jesus Christ doesn't need to be viewed through the context of his times. He lived 2000 years ago.

This is in sharp contrast to Darwin, Muhammed, the founding fathers, and a number of other so called great men who have come and gone since then.

Who would you rather place your trust in?

I don't have to place my trust in any man.

I place my trust in the evidence.

And the evidence says Evolution explains life on this Earth.

Doesn't explain how the universe came to be I'll grant you, but it explains a great deal other things about life.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Even if Evolution led to racism, that would not make it false. It's truth or falsehood rests solely on its ability to explain the evidence. Period.

My question, in the op, was whether it is possible to admire someone who was a blatant racist?

 

[Peter Grimm]

I don't have to place my trust in any man.

I place my trust in the evidence.

And the evidence says Evolution explains life on this Earth.

Doesn't explain how the universe came to be I'll grant you, but it explains a great deal other things about life.

You place your trust in our own ability to discern the evidence, which is slightly different, yet an important distinction.

 

[Peter Grimm]

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

You can't so easily divorce the theory of evolution from Charles Darwin.

Granted, if I were you, I would probably want to throw him under the bus as well. However...weak sauce. It ain't gonna fly.

 

[Jetboogieman]

You place your trust in our own ability to discern the evidence, which is slightly different, yet an important distinction.

And you place your trust in fables and fiction without any evidence whatsoever to support it.

Evolution is scientific fact.

Period.

 

[Dezaad]

My question, in the op, was whether it is possible to admire someone who was a blatant racist?

Redress said that any racism on the part of Darwin was irrelevant to the modern Theory of Evolution. You asked "is it?" I answered succinctly, though rather conclusively, that it is indeed irrelevant.

As long as we understand that, then whether he was in fact racist can be examined without emotion. Surely you want an honest discussion?

 

[lizzie]

Is it possible to admire someone who was so blatantly racist and evil?

My thoughts on the reality of evolution have nothing to do with admiration of an individual, but with the science.

 

[Peter Grimm]

Redress said that any racism on the part of Darwin was irrelevant to the modern Theory of Evolution. You asked "is it?" I answered succinctly, though rather conclusively, that it is indeed irrelevant.

As long as we understand that, then whether he was in fact racist can be examined without emotion. Surely you want an honest discussion?

Darwin and evolution are linked at the hip, and you can't divorce the one from the other.

 

[Redress]

My question, in the op, was whether it is possible to admire someone who was a blatant racist?

People are complex. I admired my father very much, despite him being very much a racist. No one is perfect, and it is entirely possible to admire the admirable things a person does, while condemning the bad things a person does.

Evolution is a theory. The only thing that matters about it is whether it correctly predicts observation and experimental results.

 

[Peter Grimm]

And you place your trust in fables and fiction without any evidence whatsoever to support it.

Evolution is scientific fact.

Period.

Flying Spaghetti Monster. Comma.

 

[Peter Grimm]

People are complex. I admired my father very much, despite him being very much a racist. No one is perfect, and it is entirely possible to admire the admirable things a person does, while condemning the bad things a person does.

Evolution is a theory. The only thing that matters about it is whether it correctly predicts observation and experimental results.

Best answer so far.

 

[Paschendale]

Darwin and evolution are linked at the hip, and you can't divorce the one from the other.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Darwin could have been a mass child rapist and that would have absolutely no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory. The theory either fits the data or it doesn't, and evolution does.

This thread is nonsensical. Especially here.

Interestingly, Jesus Christ doesn't need to be viewed through the context of his times. He lived 2000 years ago.

This is in sharp contrast to Darwin, Muhammed, the founding fathers, and a number of other so called great men who have come and gone since then.

Who would you rather place your trust in?

The point of science is that you don't HAVE to trust the person involved. You can check the data yourself. Thousands upon thousands of other scientists, both professional and amateur, have done so with regard to evolution. Not a single one has found a single piece of evidence that contradicts evolution.

And no, Jesus and the bible do not get a free pass. They are absolutely subject to modern interpretation compared with their own time. Your ethnocentric viewpoint is duly noted.