[__ Science __ ] One of Evolution’s Most Famous Stories Gets a Rewrite

[Consecrated Life]

There have been 40 million white babies aborted since Roe v. Wade. If abortion is racist, it's because it assumes whites are subhuman.

Hitler did not murder just Jews either .
But anybody with common sense can see which group was targeted for total elimination by per capita measurement ,
The number of Jews Murdered per capita far outnumbered any other in per capita numbers.
That 20 million was literally more than half of the black population in this country in 1973.

20 million of them out of a group that was only "12.1 percent" or "40.1 million" of the total Black population.
By 2021 figures mind you.
More per-capita Black boys and girls being liquidated than the per-capita of any other two racial demographics combined
Not taking into account the much smaller black population as it was when Planned Parenthood's extremist white nationalist liberal program of black genocide took off in 1973. which was almost certainly lower than 10% of the total population in 1973.

 

[Consecrated Life]

And yes , the fact that unborn little boy and girls are scientifically considered to be sub-human by the white privilege liberal extremist racists makes it possible for them to kill little boys and girls of every color, even white , because in their neanderthal, backwards, knuckle dragging understanding of science, color only counts after birth.

" YOU AIN"T BLACK ! " ( President Biden )

Margaret Sanger Introduces Her ‘Negro Project’ — June 25, 1939​

he founder of Planned Parenthood introduced her “Negro Project” on this day, just a couple months before the beginning of WWII. In Germany, the eugenics programs were almost twenty years old and Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich had already followed them to their logical conclusions, by murdering multiple thousands of the weak and helpless whose handicaps disqualified them for a future in the Aryan utopia envisioned by the Nazis.

Planned Parenthood Endorses Biden For Re-Election Amid ...​

 

[Vaccine]

He was anti-slavery, argued that blacks were entitled to freedom and the right to their own earnings, and insisted that they would adjust to England enough to be like Englishmen in a few generations.

No doubt Darwin was anti-slavery but that doesn't excuse his racism. If some hick from Kentucky said blacks are inferior and compared them to apes as proof, everyone would be outraged. Darwin did it but he gets a pass because he was anti-slavery? At least some evolutionists can acknowledge Darwin's racism:
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” -Stephen Jay Gould

Again, show us where Darwin declared "that if one took "black savages" to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen."

Doesn't sound much like a "white supremacist, does it? Compare to an American white supremacist in Florida, who is pushing education standards that say blacks benefited by being slaves.

Now, that's white supremacy.

DeSantis and Darwin both said slavery was beneficial. To Darwin's credit he said it was a crime.
“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilized nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters. As barbarians do not regard the opinion of their women, wives are commonly treated like slaves.”- Darwin

Saying slaves belonged to a different race than their masters sounds like something a white supremist would say. While Darwin's white supremacy included higher morals dictating the elimination of cruelty in any form, it makes him no less racist.

I see you edited the statement to make it look like he agrees with creationists. But the part you hid from us shows otherwise...
"No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil."
Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

The part in red is the part creationists don't get.

No offense, but I hope you see this sounds like something Trump supporters say while defending Trump. Saying we should treat the weak and helpless, that if allowed to breed would be highly injurious to the superior races of man, with mercy isn't the glowing defense of Darwin you think it is. Especially considering Darwin's idea of the weak and helpless are a sub-species inferior race of black savages.

 

[Barbarian]

No doubt Darwin was anti-slavery but that doesn't excuse his racism.

As you see, he argued that the differences were cultural and that culture would change people. That's the opposite of racism. And of course, evolutionary theory was used to debunk the racial delusions of the Nazis and creationists like Henry Morris. Should we discuss how that happened?

Again, I don't think all creationists are racists. Many, if not most have rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

It was in "The Descent of Man." I'll have to go read it again to get you the page reference.


Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate – The Descent of Man, Chapter VII

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

… As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters.

– The Descent of Man
Darwin was indeed one of the true opponents of racism, he showed through careful study and evidence that we are all related. With his brilliant insight all claims and arguments that favour racism or eugenics are washed away. Gone is the nonsense that a supernatural entity created separate races, gone is the thought that superior people have the right to own other inferior people, and gone is the very concept of class, casts or breeding. The very idea that the “savages” were inferior and had no hope of ever living in a state of equality with whites was dashed upon the rocks of evidence-based reason.

Was Darwin a racist, and does evolution promote racism? - #DarwinDay (Hint ... No) • Skeptical Science

Was Darwin a racist? A claim often asserted by some is that not only does Evolution endorse and promote racism, but also that Charles Darwin himself was a racist and openly labelled native Africans and Australians, as a savage, sub-species. In fact, some have even attempted to incarnate this...

www.skeptical-science.com

As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow-creatures. … This virtue, one of the noblest with which man is endowed, seems to arise incidentally from our sympathies becoming more tender and more widely diffused, until they are extended to all sentient beings. As soon as this virtue is honoured and practised by some few men, it spreads through instruction and example to the young, and eventually becomes incorporated in public opinion.
The Descent of Man

 

[Barbarian]

No offense, but I hope you see this sounds like something Trump supporters say while defending Trump. Saying we should treat the weak and helpless, that if allowed to breed would be highly injurious to the superior races of man, with mercy isn't the glowing defense of Darwin you think it is.

It is actually so. Because Darwin points out that humans are not merely physical beings, but have social and intellectual aspects that are more important than mere physical weaknesses. This was his point that neglecting the weak and helpless was a great evil. Not merely morally, but practically.

He is pointing out that the sort of things advocated by the Nazis or to a lesser degree by Americans like ICR co-founder Dr. Tinkle are destructive to a society. As Darwin points out in The Descent of Man humans are superior precisely because they are inclined to assist the weak and helpless.

Jesus had it right, saying this should be so because of the two great commandments. Darwin was only pointing out that it was more than mere altruism. Darwin's assumption that some races were superior in this was based on culture, not biology; as you see, he regarded physical variation in humans to be "unimportant."

 

[Barbarian]

The claim was evolutionary theory showed us races are a social construct. Genetics did that. The theory of evolution showed us this about race : "And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters."

As you have seen, Darwin regarded race as more cultural than physical. Turns out to be the case. Later investigation shows that there is more genetic variation within and race you might define than there is between such groups.

Is there anything Darwin was wrong about?

He thought that acquired characteristics might be inherited, which is wrong; even epigenetic changes aren't like that. He thought heredity was in the blood, as did most scientists at the time. This is why he had no answer for the question about how a new trait might survive in a population. When genetics made clear that it was like sorting beads rather than like mixing paint, his theory was rescued.

Darwin deplored the aggressive suppression of less technically-advanced people and supposed that they would be eventually made extinct. He was fortunately wrong about that in almost all cases.

Darwin believed all evolution would be by gradual steps, with no sudden changes. That was also wrong, as his supporter Huxley told him.

 

[Vaccine]

As you see, he argued that the differences were cultural and that culture would change people. That's the opposite of racism. And of course, evolutionary theory was used to debunk the racial delusions of the Nazis and creationists like Henry Morris. Should we discuss how that happened?

Again, I don't think all creationists are racists. Many, if not most have rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism.

Referring to black people as a sub-species isn't cultural differences. You do understand the difference between cultures and species? Darwin was objectively racist, no amount of whitewash is going to change that.

In his defense he hated cruelty of any kind, especially slavery "...And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbors as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that His Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty."

 

[Barbarian]

Referring to black people as a sub-species isn't cultural differences.

"Sub-species" is a race within a species. He actually didn't know how closely all humans on Earth are, but as you see, he recognized that the differences were "unimportant."

You do understand the difference between cultures and species?

As did Darwin. That's why he pointed out that the differences between people are cultural and as he observed, all humans think and act pretty much the same outside of cultural differences. This brought him into conflict with creationists who generally agreed with ICR founder Henry Morris that the differences were inherent in each "race." Even then, there were creationists who agreed with Darwin that all humans were essentially one population. But not many of them.

Darwin was objectively racist, no amount of whitewash is going to change that.

Mid-Victorian intellectuals can conveniently be identified as racist or anti-racist by their reactions to the 1865 Morant Bay rebellion in Jamaica and the brutal reprisals of Governor John Eyre.

Darwin was a leading light of the Jamaica Committee, which tried to have Eyre prosecuted, and recruited most of the leading scientists of the day. The racists organised an Eyre defence committee, led by Thomas Carlyle, Charles Dickens and John Ruskin.

Charles Darwin a racist? Look at his involvement in the Jamaica Committee | Letters

Letter: Mid-Victorian intellectuals can conveniently be identified as racist or anti-racist by their reactions to the 1865 Morant Bay rebellion in Jamaica

www.theguardian.com

I don't see how that would be "objectively racist." Yes, we need to judge people by their times. Washington and other founders of America bought and sold human beings and enslaved them. But Darwin's anti-racist writings and actions clearly show that he did not accept the racism of his time.

 

[Vaccine]

It is actually so. Because Darwin points out that humans are not merely physical beings, but have social and intellectual aspects that are more important than mere physical weaknesses. This was his point that neglecting the weak and helpless was a great evil. Not merely morally, but practically.

He is pointing out that the sort of things advocated by the Nazis or to a lesser degree by Americans like ICR co-founder Dr. Tinkle are destructive to a society. As Darwin points out in The Descent of Man humans are superior precisely because they are inclined to assist the weak and helpless.

Jesus had it right, saying this should be so because of the two great commandments. Darwin was only pointing out that it was more than mere altruism. Darwin's assumption that some races were superior in this was based on culture, not biology; as you see, he regarded physical variation in humans to be "unimportant."

Darwin regarded physical variation in humans as crucial evidence for his theory. He cited variations in teeth, smell and ears as biological evidence for his theory. It's silly to keep saying the differences were cultural, unless you know of a culture based on the sense of smell.

For example: “It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro. " Darwin, Descent of Man

Darwin comparing black people to gorillas is not some unimportant difference, its racist. Referring to black people as inferior, savage, and a sub-species is objectively racist. But for some reason people idolize Darwin the way a lot of people idolize Trump. They're willing to go to great lengths to whitewash racism or sexism so they're seen in a good light.

I'm not in a cult so I'm glad when racist creationists are called out. Morris, Tinkle, Agassiz, these men are all despicable. If Biden's guilty of a crime impeach him. I don't idolize any of those people, so I have no need to whitewash them.

 

[Barbarian]

Darwin regarded physical variation in humans as crucial evidence for his theory.

Nope. In fact, he made no statements at all about human evolution in The Origin of Species, in which he laid out his evidence for descent with modification. Might be good to read it and learn what Darwin actually wrote.

It's silly to keep saying the differences were cultural

He merely mentioned that variations in human appearance were so "unimportant" that it was very clear that they all existed in the ancestors of all living humans.

For example: “It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro. " Darwin, Descent of Man

Precisely. He's pointing out that the "lobule" is something that predated modern humans. If anything, such data would suggest that blacks are more evolved than other humans. Think about it.

Darwin comparing black people to gorillas is not some unimportant difference, its racist.

Darwin is contrasting them with humans. Whites and gorillias have lobules. Blacks often don't. If anything, he's comparing whites to gorillas. C'mon.

Referring to black people as inferior, savage, and a sub-species is objectively racist.

Notice that Darwin mentions superior black people he has known. On the other hand, creationism began like this:

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
YE creationist, co-founder of the Institute for Creation Research, Henry Morris.

But for some reason people idolize Darwin the way a lot of people idolize Trump.

Darwin was one of the great scientists. If he had never discovered the mehanism of evolution, he'd still be highly regarded. He was the man who demonstrated that barnacles were not mollusks, but arthropods. He discovered how Pacific atolls have formed among other things. But as I showed you, he was wrong on some things. Even great scientists make errors.

He wasn't the all-knowing founder of biology. He wan't a racist of the sort we see in early creationists. He was just an especially astute scientist. That's it.

I'm not in a cult so I'm glad when racist creationists are called out. Morris, Tinkle, Agassiz, these men are all despicable.

I think Agassiz was mentally ill. Reading his reactions to black people, it sounds more like pathological fear than hatred.
That's not to take anything away from Agassiz's many great contributions to science. He was pretty much the last world-class biologist who didn't accept Darwin's findings.

Ironically, on the outer walls of the library of a great Midwestern university, are the names of great scientists. Agassiz is one name away from Darwin.

 

[Vaccine]

Nope. In fact, he made no statements at all about human evolution in The Origin of Species, in which he laid out his evidence for descent with modification. Might be good to read it and learn what Darwin actually wrote.

I've been quoting Darwin this whole time, even pointed out the quote is from Descent of Man not Origin of Species. My apologies if that struck a nerve.

He merely mentioned that variations in human appearance were so "unimportant" that it was very clear that they all existed in the ancestors of all living humans.

We had been talking about Darwin referring to black people as inferior. Spinning objective racism as "cultural differences" is enough to induce a hurricane. Imagine someone dismissing Morris's racism as merely cultural differences.

Precisely. He's pointing out that the "lobule" is something that predated modern humans. If anything, such data would suggest that blacks are more evolved than other humans. Think about it.

Darwin is contrasting them with humans. Whites and gorillias have lobules. Blacks often don't. If anything, he's comparing whites to gorillas. C'mon.

Well, if anyone else contrasted black people with gorillas they'd be cancelled. And rightly so. This is like watching some Trump supporter squirm when asked about the grab 'em by the...
No, no, no, think about it. He said they let him do it! Semantics. Let, contrasting, its just semantics.
Trump isn't a bad guy, nobody has more respect for women.
Darwin isn't a bad guy, nobody has more compassion for the inferior, savage races of man that should they be allowed to breed would be be highly injurious to the superior races of man.

Notice that Darwin mentions superior black people he has known.

Some of his best friends are black? To his credit, Darwin expressed a lot of compassion for black people. It's unfortunate he thought of them as lesser humans that should be treated with compassion like you would a dog or horse. Also, he said John Edmonstone was intelligent, not superior.

On the other hand, creationism began like this:

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
YE creationist, co-founder of the Institute for Creation Research, Henry Morris.

Is Morris merely pointing out cultural differences? In all seriousness, Morris is contemptable for the racist things he wrote. But biological arguments for racism "increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory".

He wan't a racist of the sort we see in early creationists.

This sounds like an acknowledgement of Darwin's racism. Trump and Darwin, infallible paragons of virtue compared to Biden and early creationists.

 

[Barbarian]

I've been quoting Darwin this whole time,

Notice that your quotes about men are not from the book in which he explained his theory. Sorry if I struck a nerve.

I though you knew that On the Origin of Species is the book in which he lays out his theory. Darwin didn't need to discuss human evolution, because his theory doesn't depend on human evolution.

We had been talking about Darwin referring to black people as inferior. Spinning objective racism as "cultural differences" is enough to induce a hurricane. Imagine someone dismissing Morris's racism as merely cultural differences.

The difference is that Darwin considered the inferiority of other cultures to be cultural and creationists considered them to be inferior by genetics. (e.g. Morris and Tinkle) This is why he explains how the thought processes of other races are essentially the same as his own. Unless you can show that Darwin thought blacks were superior because they often lack earlobes. BTW, New Guinea Highlanders, who are among the most genetically isolated people remaining on Earth, vary a lot in this respect. So there is that. Apparently, white folks aren't more closely related to gorillas as your story suggested earlier.

But biological arguments for racism "increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory".

As you see, Darwin condemned "social Darwinism" as a great evil. The Nazis glorified "Aryan Christianity" and the prejudices of Martin Luther (who was otherwise a faithful Christian, BTW). Any ideology can be bent to evil if one so intends. Neither Jesus nor Darwin are to blame for this.

Trump and Darwin, infallible paragons of virtue compared to Biden and early creationists.

Don't think Trump or Darwin have a jackal in this fight. Often, in war, when a fleet encounters a much more formidable enemy, it will retreat, but have the smaller vessels lay down a smoke screen to cover their escape. I don't think Trump or Biden were into that kind of thing; somehow that just came to mind.

 

[Vaccine]

I though you knew that On the Origin of Species is the book in which he lays out his theory. Darwin didn't need to discuss human evolution, because his theory doesn't depend on human evolution.

If only Darwin hadn't wrote Descent of Man.
Had Trump conceded, the January 6 insurrection would not have happened.
Had Darwin not wrote Descent of Man, white supremacy would not be a thing.

The difference is that Darwin considered the inferiority of other cultures to be cultural and creationists considered them to be inferior by genetics. (e.g. Morris and Tinkle) This is why he explains how the thought processes of other races are essentially the same as his own. Unless you can show that Darwin thought blacks were superior because they often lack earlobes. BTW, New Guinea Highlanders, who are among the most genetically isolated people remaining on Earth, vary a lot in this respect. So there is that. Apparently, white folks aren't more closely related to gorillas as your story suggested earlier.

Maybe if he wrote the Preservation of Favoured Cultures in the Struggle for Life. Racism wouldn't be a thing. In Darwin's book about favored races, he said Australian savages are incapable of self-consciousness. Darwin asserted higher civilized races have completely different though processes than the lower savage races.

"Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations." - Descent of Man

Darwin routinely spoke of higher and lower apes, higher and lower men, and higher and lower races. He said Europeans immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit. While also referring to Africans, Australians, Indians, and Eskimos as the savage races closer to the ape.

"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" - Descent of Man

Darwin's hierarchy is Caucasian, Negro, Australian, gorilla, baboon. These aren't cultural differences. He considered racial differences crucial evidence in Descent of Man.

Also, I don't need to show Darwin thought blacks were inferior, he said it right out. This isn't my story, Darwin's story is black people are more closely related to gorillas than white people.

As you see, Darwin condemned "social Darwinism" as a great evil. The Nazis glorified "Aryan Christianity" and the prejudices of Martin Luther (who was otherwise a faithful Christian, BTW). Any ideology can be bent to evil if one so intends. Neither Jesus nor Darwin are to blame for this.

While Darwin himself was a compassionate man and took pity on the lower races. He could hardly condemn social Darwinism since he created it. If he never wrote Descent of Man social Darwinism would not be a thing. Evil people will still do evil deeds. But white supremacy would have no biological justification without Darwin. As Gould points out: “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”

Don't think Trump or Darwin have a jackal in this fight. Often, in war, when a fleet encounters a much more formidable enemy, it will retreat, but have the smaller vessels lay down a smoke screen to cover their escape. I don't think Trump or Biden were into that kind of thing; somehow that just came to mind.

Drawing parallels actually illuminates blind spots, not create them.
For example, the right's obsession with Hunter Biden. They point out Hunters graft, but refuse to even acknowledge Kushner and Ivanka's billions in graft. Clearly a double standard.
Contrast that with Henry Morris and Darwin.
Morris is wrong. But Darwin is orders of magnitude wrong. He contrasted black people with gorillas, called them black savages, inferred they are closer to apes than white people, said if allowed to breed it would be highly highly injurious to the race of man, etc.

It took 4 pages into this thread to even acknowledge Darwin writings might be racist. Even that was some vague non-committal answer: He wasn't a racist, at least not the sort we see in early creationists.
Earlier you sad creationism is a racist ideology. You can point out racist creationists, sure. But that's not a good argument for the doctrine of Divine creation being racist.
I assert Darwin wrote racist ideology, then quote actual passages from Descent of Man. I have no intention of retreating from this thread because there's ample ammunition of white supremist ideas in Descent of Man.

 

[Barbarian]

I though you knew that On the Origin of Species is the book in which he lays out his theory. Darwin didn't need to discuss human evolution, because his theory doesn't depend on human evolution.

If only Darwin hadn't wrote Descent of Man.

That neither added to, nor subtracted from the theory. As you now realize, Darwin asserted that all races were essentially the same in their thinking and emotions. He saw incidental differences as "unimportant" and asserted that all of these characters were from a common ancestor.

You even tried to twist a statement about earlobes that compared whites and gorillas, and contrasted them with blacks, to be comparing blacks and gorillas.

Had Darwin not wrote Descent of Man, white supremacy would not be a thing.

So whites weren't abusing blacks and asserting dominance over them before Darwin's book? C'mon. Darwin, in The Voyage of the Beagle describes an angry argument he had with the creationist captain of the Beagle. Capt. Fitzroy asserted that blacks were fit to be slaves and were happy to be so. Darwin doubted that slaves asked such a question by their master who had the power of life and death over them, could answer freely. So your assumption is clearly wrong.

Don't think Trump or Darwin have a jackal in this fight. Often, in war, when a fleet encounters a much more formidable enemy, it will retreat, but have the smaller vessels lay down a smoke screen to cover their escape. I don't think Trump or Biden were into that kind of thing; somehow that just came to mind.

For example, the right's obsession with Hunter Biden. They point out Hunters graft, but refuse to even acknowledge Kushner and Ivanka's billions in graft. Clearly a double standard.

Maybe we could clear the atmosphere, if we stayed with the topic.

Morris is wrong. But Darwin is orders of magnitude wrong. He contrasted black people with gorillas.

He compared whites to gorillas, noting that in at least one respect, whites were more like gorillas than blacks. But he didn't suggest that whites were somehow inferior to blacks. Morris, on the other hand, specifically argued that blacks are, by genetics, intellectually and spiritually inferior to whites. I don't think you've thought this out very well.

Earlier you sad creationism is a racist ideology.

It was based in racism, as you see from the example of Capt. Fitzroy. That is not to say that all or even most creationists today accept such an idea.

I assert Darwin wrote racist ideology, then quote actual passages from Descent of Man.

Which don't seem to support your ideas. In your one case that involved something genetic, a racist would conclude that whites were more closely related to gorillas than blacks. Are you now asserting that Darwin thought whites are inferior to blacks?

As you see, the once mention of white supremacy in Darwin's writings was him citing Fitzroy's racist comments.

 

[Vaccine]

I though you knew that On the Origin of Species is the book in which he lays out his theory. Darwin didn't need to discuss human evolution, because his theory doesn't depend on human evolution.

Of course. Darwin isn't discussing natural selection. He's providing evidence of human origins, and it's rank with white supremacy, sexism, and racism.
Darwin on Indian people in his book of science:
"; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian."
What do you call discrimination against people on the basis of their membership to a particular racial or ethnic group?

That neither added to, nor subtracted from the theory. As you now realize, Darwin asserted that all races were essentially the same in their thinking and emotions. He saw incidental differences as "unimportant" and asserted that all of these characters were from a common ancestor.

I'm sure you don't actually believe Darwin wrote that book just for the fun of it. Of course he meant to add to his theory. At the very least it adds sexual selection.
Darwin on differences:
"There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other,–as in the texture of the hair, the relative proportions of all parts of the body'"
Well, that's the opposite of your assertion. There is no mention of cultural differences, unless you can provide a quote or passage?

So whites weren't abusing blacks and asserting dominance over them before Darwin's book? C'mon. Darwin, in The Voyage of the Beagle describes an angry argument he had with the creationist captain of the Beagle. Capt. Fitzroy asserted that blacks were fit to be slaves and were happy to be so. Darwin doubted that slaves asked such a question by their master who had the power of life and death over them, could answer freely. So your assumption is clearly wrong.

Of course evil existed before and after Darwin. The problem is:
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” - Gould

Darwin on slaves:
"“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.””
Darwin said slavery is a great crime, but also said it was beneficial. DeSantis is bad for saying it but Darwin you defend. Is there some reason you are unable to be critical of Darwin?

He compared whites to gorillas, noting that in at least one respect, whites were more like gorillas than blacks.

Darwin wrote:
“It has been asserted that the ear of man alone possesses a lobule; but ‘a rudiment of it is found in the gorilla’ and, as I hear from Prof. Preyer, it is not rarely absent in the negro."

Your assertion is misinterprets the passage because it ignored the semicolon. Darwin passage asserts a rudiment of an earlobe is found both in the gorilla and some black people. Identifying traits present in gorillas and the low savage races but absent in higher white races is the biological evidence white supremist use to justify their racism. Also, Darwin was all too willing to accept hearsay evidence from Prof. Preyer.

But he didn't suggest that whites were somehow inferior to blacks. Morris, on the other hand, specifically argued that blacks are, by genetics, intellectually and spiritually inferior to whites. I don't think you've thought this out very well.

Darwin suggested:
"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 a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
Darwin's hierarchy places white people above black people. That wasn't a suggestion, he said it straight out several times:
"Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations.'
We know this because Darwin also referenced white and civilised races on one hand and negros and savages on the other.

Which don't seem to support your ideas.

Directly cited text from The Descent of Man speaks for itself.

As you see, the once mention of white supremacy in Darwin's writings was him citing Fitzroy's racist comments.

Let's see what else Darwin wrote:
"...and have continued on an average as fertile as either pure whites or pure blacks."

Exactly what is a pure white person? I'm sure any white supremist can answer that.

No offense, but your refusal to even acknowledge what many Darwinists can, is both entertaining and deeply disturbing. I'm sure when we meet in heaven we'll have a big laugh about all this but in the meantime, can't we at least agree Darwin wrote some pretty awful stuff about Black and Indian people? He himself was an incredibly compassionate person who held no malice toward anyone, but seemed to have a blind spot when it came to racism.

 

[Barbarian]

I thought you knew that On the Origin of Species is the book in which he lays out his theory. Darwin didn't need to discuss human evolution, because his theory doesn't depend on human evolution.

Of course. Darwin isn't discussing natural selection. He's providing evidence of human origins, and it's rank with white supremacy, sexism, and racism.

About all he actually says about human origins is his prediction that humans likely originated in Africa. Which is confirmed by subsequent fossils of hominins.

As you see, the once mention of white supremacy in Darwin's writings was him citing Fitzroy's racist comments.

Let's see what else Darwin wrote:
"...and have continued on an average as fertile as either pure whites or pure blacks."

Exactly what is a pure white person?

A person of exclusively European ancestry. However, with the advent of genetics, it has been shown that almost all of us have genes from other places in the world than our ancestral homes. Neither Darwin nor any other of his contemporaries knew this.

I'm sure any white supremist can answer that.

Don't think so. Most of them rank "white people" according to a scale of whiteness.

I notice the angry creationist in your link admits that Darwin's theory has no racist content, but thinks it's contaminated anyway because Darwin thought Englishmen were at the peak of civilization.

Compare Darwin's comment that blacks and Native Americans had mental processes just like Europeans, with the views of creationists like Capt. Fitzroy who thought they were fit only to be slaves and were better off being slaves, or in the modern era, creationists like Henry Morris who felt that they were genetically inferior to whites. Darwin speaks of Europeans as at the acme of civilization. Which is cultural, not racial.

As you know, if you look at Darwin's theory, there is no racism in it whatever. Take each of the four points of his theory and show me, if you doubt this. What do you have?

 

[Barbarian]

Most notably, Darwin pretty much single-handedly destroyed the notion that human races were different species:
On the other side of the question, if our supposed naturalist were to enquire whether the forms of man keep distinct like ordinary species, when mingled together in large numbers in the same country, he would immediately discover that this was by no means the case. In Brazil he would behold an immense mongrel population of Negroes and Portuguese; in Chiloe, and other parts of South America, he would behold the whole population consisting of Indians and Spaniards blended in various degrees. (16. M. de Quatrefages has given ('Anthropological Review,' Jan. 1869, p. 22), an interesting account of the success and energy of the Paulistas in Brazil, who are a much crossed race of Portuguese and Indians, with a mixture of the blood of other races.) In many parts of the same continent he would meet with the most complex crosses between Negroes, Indians, and Europeans; and judging from the vegetable kingdom, such triple crosses afford the severest test of the mutual fertility of the parent forms. In one island of the Pacific he would find a small population of mingled Polynesian and English blood; and in the Fiji Archipelago a population of Polynesian and Negritos crossed in all degrees. Many analogous cases could be added; for instance, in Africa. Hence the races of man are not sufficiently distinct to inhabit the same country without fusion; and the absence of fusion affords the usual and best test of specific distinctness.

Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he perceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly variable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other races. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant. Savages, even within the limits of the same tribe, are not nearly so uniform in character, as has been often asserted. Hottentot women offer certain peculiarities, more strongly marked than those occurring in any other race, but these are known not to be of constant occurrence. In the several American tribes, colour and hairiness differ considerably; as does colour to a certain degree, and the shape of the features greatly, in the Negroes of Africa. The shape of the skull varies much in some races (17. For instance, with the aborigines of America and Australia, Prof. Huxley says ('Transact. Internat. Congress of Prehist. Arch.' 1868, p. 105), that the skulls of many South Germans and Swiss are "as short and as broad as those of the Tartars," etc.); and so it is with every other character. Now all naturalists have learnt by dearly bought experience, how rash it is to attempt to define species by the aid of inconstant characters.

But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having intercrossed.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man Ch VII
This was no small accomplishment; Agassiz, perhaps the most famous biologist of his time, was completely opposed to evolutionary theory and Darwin's finding that all humans had a common ancestor.
In 1847, the crowd for a lecture given by the famous Louis R. Agassiz would have been extensive — in Charleston, South Carolina, it was feverish.

The local naturalists at The Literary Club of Charleston were preoccupied with a question they suspected only Agassiz, a newly initiated professor of zoology at Harvard, could answer: were Black and white men indeed separate species? Before he relocated to the United States, Agassiz had accepted the scientific consensus of the time, that all men belonged to the same species. But in the lectures he delivered in Cambridge, he began to hint at the more fringe theory of polygenism.

In Charleston, Agassiz took his first steps towards publicizing his theory — a decision which would forever alter his legacy as a scientist. He declared that Black people were, in profound ways, anatomically distinct from white people. He presented racist speculation after racist speculation, saying even that “the brain of the Negro is that of the imperfect brain of a seven month’s infant in the womb of a White.”

Following the lecture, fueled in part by the enthusiasm of the crowd, Agassiz became a more avid scientific racist and is largely remembered as such today.

Louis Agassiz, Under a Microscope | Magazine | The Harvard Crimson

Though some historians argue it is difficult to reconcile these two visions of Louis Agassiz — one gentle and reverential, the other rigid and bigoted —, they may simply be two sides of the same coin. Agassiz prided himself on his ability to distinguish and characterize species. With his theory...

www.thecrimson.com

 

[Barbarian]

Of course. Darwin isn't discussing natural selection. He's providing evidence of human origins, and it's rank with white supremacy, sexism, and racism.
Darwin on Indian people in his book of science:
"; common experience justifies the maxim of the Spaniard, "Never, never trust an Indian."
What do you call discrimination against people on the basis of their membership to a particular racial or ethnic group?

Cultural differences. After all, Darwin pointed out that such people clearly used the same mental processes as Europeans. As you know, he attributed European superiority to civilization.

I'm sure you don't actually believe Darwin wrote that book just for the fun of it. Of course he meant to add to his theory.

He wrote on how barnacles aren't mollusks and are actually arthropods. How do you think this changed his theory of evolution? He wrote on how Pacific atolls formed. How do you suppose this added to his theory? C'mon.

Which of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory were changed by The Descent of Man? And tell us why you think so.

Lacking genetics, Darwin was unable to do what later Darwinists were able to do, and show that the creationist notion of inherently inferior races was false. But he clearly did not buy their beliefs, as his argument with the creationist captain of the Beagle shows.

 

[Vaccine]

.

As you see, the once mention of white supremacy in Darwin's writings was him citing Fitzroy's racist comments.

There isn't a citation or quotes around Darwin's statement, nor any mention of Fitzroy near this text:
“Slavery, although in some ways beneficial during ancient times, is a great crime; yet it was not so regarded until quite recently, even by the most civilised nations. And this was especially the case, because the slaves belonged in general to a race different from that of their masters.” Descent of Man p131

To back up his claim slavery is beneficial, Darwin did cite Mr. Bagehot, but those were Darwin's own words. Why is Desantis bad for saying slavery is beneficial but not Darwin?

A person of exclusively European ancestry. However, with the advent of genetics, it has been shown that almost all of us have genes from other places in the world than our ancestral homes. Neither Darwin nor any other of his contemporaries knew this.

It's too bad Darwin didn't know that. Otherwise he might not have said:
1. A "pure" white race exists.
2. That these Europeans are at the summit of civilization.
3. That they are the "highest men of the highest races"
4. Or that the "lowest races", "savage races", and "lowest savages" exist
Races are races. The fact that Darwin labels them savage races is racist.
If it weren't for Darwin white supremist might have just been a footnote in history.

I notice the angry creationist in your link admits that Darwin's theory has no racist content, but thinks it's contaminated anyway because Darwin thought Englishmen were at the peak of civilization.

From the link:
Darwin’s writing was racist, and discriminatory beliefs and practices follow directly from his theories. If you’re a lover of evolution or biology major like I am, you may be tempted to reject that claim..

He isn't a creationist, he asserts Darwin's theory does have racist content, and makes no mention of contamination. As far as I can tell you didn't read the article or are referencing a completely different link.

Compare Darwin's comment that blacks and Native Americans had mental processes just like Europeans, with the views of creationists like Capt. Fitzroy who thought they were fit only to be slaves and were better off being slaves, or in the modern era, creationists like Henry Morris who felt that they were genetically inferior to whites. Darwin speaks of Europeans as at the acme of civilization. Which is cultural, not racial.

Darwin wrote:
"The races differ also in constitution, in acclimatisation and in liability to certain diseases. Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties."
Well, this is the opposite of your assertion they're just like Europeans.

Darwin also wrote:
"The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said."
Apparently a word does need said here because people today think Darwin said there's no difference in mental processes between the races. Can you see it's racist to judge mental faculties based on race? Or do you agree with Darwin, certain races can be smarter than others?

As you know, if you look at Darwin's theory, there is no racism in it whatever. Take each of the four points of his theory and show me, if you doubt this. What do you have?

I don't doubt it. But the fact is Darwin's writing was racist and created social Darwinism.