Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So is it safe to conclude, based on no evidence to the contrary, that Origin of Species is NOT blatantly rasist, deals with neither human evolution nor the origin of life and Darwin himself was not blatantly rasist?
So is it safe to conclude, based on no evidence to the contrary, that Origin of Species is NOT blatantly rasist, deals with neither human evolution nor the origin of life and Darwin himself was not blatantly rasist?
Except the fact that Darwin considered the white man to be more advanced than the black man. I've never tried it, but I'm guessing that if I were to tell a black man that I was more advanced than him I might get a negative reaction.
Except the fact that Darwin considered the white man to be more advanced than the black man.
In culture and civilization. He was no more rasist than your founding fathers and the majority of the men who fought for the Union. I find it interesting that you view your God and the actions of Biblical characters in the background of their time frame but Darwin you wish to rate him by 2015 standards. And you have not even shown evidence for that. Let's judge your God by today's standards in slavery and victims of rape and if not then do not expect a 19th century English man to have the same language as one from today.
But this is not about you now casting accusations against Darwin, this is totally about his book, the subject of the thread, and your claim that the book is blatantly rasist. You have provided zero evidence to support your claim, remained silence when shown that you were wrong and now come back with fresh accusations. Back up your original one first. But you can't, you just throw new ones. I have already shown where he stated that the prime difference between a bushman and a European was cultural and that it was Imperialism not being inferior that would eliminate those of a more primitive culture. If you want to argue that Christians were on average less rasist then Darwin then start a new thread but this one was about one book. And your claim made against that one book was found to be without metit.
Life is too short to debate with a person who sets different rules for himself from what he would expect from others. You have your own facts and when the are shown to be false you double up with new unfounded ones.
Ignore List for you as well. In more than a decade on forums I have never before but anyone on ignore and now two just in this week.
Except the fact that Darwin considered the white man to be more advanced than the black man. I've never tried it, but I'm guessing that if I were to tell a black man that I was more advanced than him I might get a negative reaction.
Tell us in what way did he say whites were more advanced? What led him to think this back in the 1850's?
Darwin despised slavery. Just becasue he observed and wrote about a society that was less evolutionary evolved than the Europeans back during his time...Does not make him a racist.
It's a fact that Africa is still a 3rd world Continent. This is a fact not a racist call.
You creationists will grasp at straws and twist and twist the words of others to try and manufacture a conspiracy.
And even if he was, it's totally irrelevant to whether or not his (and Wallace's) theory is correct.
Isaac Newton is considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time, and even he dabbled with things like the geography of Hell and other mumbo jumbo popular at the time.
And even if he was, it's totally irrelevant to whether or not his (and Wallace's) theory is correct.
Isaac Newton is considered to be one of the greatest scientists of all time, and even he dabbled with things like the geography of Hell and other mumbo jumbo popular at the time.
Isn't that a standard debating strategy deflect?
We do know that evolution is nit racist, that Origin of Species was not racist and that the Co -discoverers were 19th century English and that all the attempts to smear Darwin or the claims that he denounced his on theory on his death bed and any of the other nonsense thrown at him matter not as a scientific theory resides in the science not the man or woman behind proposing the theory.
If the character of the man did matter for the value 9f the theory then by all a counts Darwin was a devoted husband to his devoutly religious wife and took a very active role in the raising of his children. His friends said of him that he was a kind and gentle man and quite modest about his achievements. He also for some reason found beetles very interesting. I really enjoyed The Voyage of the Beagle. However nothing in this paragraph adds anything to how important his Origin of Species was and is.
So is it safe to conclude, based on no evidence to the contrary, that Origin of Species is NOT blatantly rasist, deals with neither human evolution nor the origin of life and Darwin himself was not blatantly rasist?
The Origin does not deal with human evolution or abiogenesis, this is pretty common knowledge. Copies with good indexes are readily available, you can check it out for yourself.
What Darwin had to say about human evolution can be found in the Descent of Man, copies of which are - of course - readily available.
Darwin disparages Tierra del Fuegians in the Voyage of the Beagle in ways that we would term racist today. Copies of this book are also readily available, you need not take my word (or anyone's word) about this. However, he was also an abolitionist, probably of the jeffersonian variety - slavery is wrong, most blacks are inferior to most whites.
Darwin never published anything about biogenesis, but he did think about it.
"In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on 1 February 1871,[66] Darwin discussed the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." He had written to Hooker in 1863 stating that "It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.". In On the Origin of Species he had referred to life having been "created", by which he "really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process", but had soon regretted using the old-testament term "creation".[67]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Darwin's racism has nothing to do with the validity of the principles of "descent with modification" as he termed it. Anymore than Newton's belief in alchemy has anything to do with the validity of his famous three laws.
The Origin does not deal with human evolution or abiogenesis, this is pretty common knowledge. Copies with good indexes are readily available, you can check it out for yourself.
What Darwin had to say about human evolution can be found in the Descent of Man, copies of which are - of course - readily available.
Darwin disparages Tierra del Fuegians in the Voyage of the Beagle in ways that we would term racist today. Copies of this book are also readily available, you need not take my word (or anyone's word) about this. However, he was also an abolitionist, probably of the jeffersonian variety - slavery is wrong, most blacks are inferior to most whites.
Darwin never published anything about biogenesis, but he did think about it.
"In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker on 1 February 1871,[66] Darwin discussed the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." He had written to Hooker in 1863 stating that "It is mere rubbish, thinking at present of the origin of life; one might as well think of the origin of matter.". In On the Origin of Species he had referred to life having been "created", by which he "really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process", but had soon regretted using the old-testament term "creation".[67]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Darwin's racism has nothing to do with the validity of the principles of "descent with modification" as he termed it. Anymore than Newton's belief in alchemy has anything to do with the validity of his famous three laws.
Redundant as I already referenced most of this in response to Vizio but thanks anyways. I have and have read both Origin of Species and Voyage of the Beagle. It is not honest to attempt to put Darwin's attitudes to today's standards if the anti evolutionists will not put Christians of his day or of the Biblical times to the same standards. I have not read Descent of Man
I have known older men who used racists terms for people of colour and yet treated those people with friendship and respect and as equals. Terms change in meanings over time and we always judge using today's meaning of the term instead of what it meant at the time it was used or when they learnt the word. A good example is gay sure meant different in the 19th century than it does today or *** meaning different in England as it does in the States.
Except the fact that Darwin considered the white man to be more advanced than the black man. I've never tried it, but I'm guessing that if I were to tell a black man that I was more advanced than him I might get a negative reaction.
I think that's where reading might put you right. Some peoples were more advanced than others, but it was nothing to with race, let alone skin colour. We all came from the same species. We all made tools, developed farming and pottery and language. That's the theory. Some lived by large rivers and were able to develop complex civilizations with writing and even science. But it was to do with environment, not race or how much of a tan you had.
Of course, no mention of the number of fundies who took part in the survey; they would have put the bible up as an 'academic' book.
Sill waiting for an answer.
Do you believe in this?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
