[_ Old Earth _] social darwinism

[Bronzesnake]

Hello my friend!

(And a perfect example of the way creationists hide the truth by selective quote-mining)
Arrggg! the dreaded "quote miner" spit ball!
Anytime a post provides devastating evidence against their atheistic faith this inevitably gets whipped out.
Ouch that truth really hurt...â€quote miner!â€

Darwin sees competition between races as something to be deplored, but he sees little hope of stopping it, even as he sees eugenics as evil.

Wow, talk about putting delicious whipped cream on a chunk of crap cake!
That’s really weird because by reading the full title of Darwood’s book, we get another impression...
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

O know, I know, He didn't mean what he said...Now you can go ahead and tell us what he really, really meant to say...

If there was any doubt as to Darwood’s true feelings regarding racism, just have a boo at his second book, The Descent of Man, one entire chapter was dedicated to “The Races of Man.†In that book, Darwin wrote:
"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" (1874, p. 178).

If this still doesn’t convince you read on brother, read on!

"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes."

Those darn light hearted talkative negroes!

Darwin most certainly maintained an outward concern for social justice, but his close personal buddy, Thomas Henry Huxley, Darwin’s Bulldog†made this sweet statement...
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites" (1871, p. 20).

OK, now all you atheists can come to the rescue and tell us all how we are all a bunch of dirtyquote miners and we’ve got it all wrong, that Darwin didn’t actually mean what he said, that back in the day people said the opposite of what they really believed as a sort of upper lip word game to fool the low brows! LOL!


Bronzesnake

 

[Evointrinsic]

(And a perfect example of the way creationists hide the truth by selective quote-mining)
Arrggg! the dreaded "quote miner" spit ball!
Anytime a post provides devastating evidence against their atheistic faith this inevitably gets whipped out.
Ouch that truth really hurt...â€quote miner!â€

HAHAHA! Wow, i cannot believe how you've absolutely shut down your mind to any evidence that counters yours. It really is astonishing. Now, If you actually look at Barbarians post, it CLEARLY shows how the quote given originally was taken out of context. I bet Pard is man enough to at least admit that he misinterpreted what he quoted. But you, you're something else. I couldn't convince you the sky was blue if you thought otherwise. I even made an entire topic showing how quote-mining works and you still cannot grasp the concept.

 

[jasoncran]

why are we defending that persons statements. when in that era slavery was just made illegal, and in america negroes were considered less then equals.

barb, i know that you are old enough to recall the jim crow laws and segragation and the so called equal but seperate(what a joke that was)

we still have some buildings that originally had the colored bathrooms in my hometown.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Darwin sees competition between races as something to be deplored, but he sees little hope of stopping it, even as he sees eugenics as evil.

Wow, talk about putting delicious whipped cream on a chunk of crap cake!
That’s really weird because by reading the full title of Darwood’s book, we get another impression...
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

In that book, he didn't talk about humans at all. "Races" is what they used to call species. Surprise.

I know, I know, He didn't mean what he said...

More precisely he didn't mean what you want him to mean.

If there was any doubt as to Darwood’s true feelings regarding racism, just have a boo at his second book, The Descent of Man, one entire chapter was dedicated to “The Races of Man.†In that book, Darwin wrote:
"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" (1874, p. 178).

Darwin, like Lincoln, thought people of European descent were superior. Like Lincoln, Darwin also thought that it didn't matter; all men were entitled to freedom, dignity and the fruits of their own labor. Surprise again. Darwin was jubilant when England banished slavery from the Empire.

Those darn light hearted talkative negroes!

Today, it's hard to find a racist who accepts evolution, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. But as late as the 1990s, chief evolutionist Henry Morris was still babbling about the supposed mental and spiritual inferiority of black people. This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. 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 have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
ICR director Henry Morris, in The Beginning Of the World Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148:

Racism that blatant today would ruin the career of any biologist. But no creationist stepped up to call out Morris on that bit of stupidity and bigotry. Not all creationists are racists, of course, but it's troubling that no one on your side thought it proper to criticize that bilge from the top.

 

[Barbarian]

barb, i know that you are old enough to recall the jim crow laws and segragation and the so called equal but seperate(what a joke that was)

I'm old enough to know that the people who defended that kind of thing were the same people who didn't like evolution. If you take a map and paint over the states where Jim Crow ruled, you'll find that creationism rules there today. It's a serious issue; creationists need to address it.

 

[Barbarian]

from a liberal paper the washington times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... e-adviser/

No, you're thinking of the Washington Post. The guy who owns the Washington Times (Myung Son Moon) is a right wing nut who once declared that Richard Nixon was put in office by God, and only God could remove him. He also claims to be an improvement on Jesus Christ.

So it's not surprising the sort of stuff that oozes out of that paper.

 

[Pard]

barb, i know that you are old enough to recall the jim crow laws and segragation and the so called equal but seperate(what a joke that was)

I'm old enough to know that the people who defended that kind of thing were the same people who didn't like evolution. If you take a map and paint over the states where Jim Crow ruled, you'll find that creationism rules there today. It's a serious issue; creationists need to address it.

Oh Barbie... I hope you are not asserting that it was the darn republicans...

The Republican party is the only party that tries to defend creationism... the misinformed left also likes to claim the republicans are the racist jim crow loving red necks... You need to go do some history... and by the way, how is good old Byrd doing? With him wheelchair bound, can he still get in his white cloak for the weekend clan bbqs?

 

[Barbarian]

Oh Barbie... I hope you are not asserting that it was the darn republicans...

I'm old enough to remember when the democrat party had the most racists. It wasn't until Nixon that the GOP was the party of choice for racists.

The Republican party is the only party that tries to defend creationism...

The only major party. There are some neo-nazi groups that do as well. But it wasn't always that way. It's not about democrats and republicans.

the misinformed left also likes to claim the republicans are the racist jim crow loving red necks...

"I'm just more comfortable in the Republican party." GOP leader, Klan Dragon, and Nazi, David Duke. It's not the party of Lincoln any more. But democrats shouldn't gloat. They used to have the Dukes and Helms, and Wallaces.

You need to go do some history...

Lived through it. And my 30+ hours of history (mostly American) are all A's. I was once stationed at a very boring post, so I took history courses on base.

and by the way, how is good old Byrd doing?

Not so good. He had the choice of changing his stance or moving to the GOP. He decided to change.

With him wheelchair bound, can he still get in his white cloak for the weekend clan bbqs?

Hard to say. He's a vestige from the time when racists were mostly democrats. The one constant, as you see from ICR leader Henry Morris, is creationism and racism. As I said, that doesn't mean that all creationists are racists. But they clearly tolerate the kind of racism that would ruin a scientist today.

 

[Crying Rock]

Have I read any of Darwin's books? To a minor extent, I have flipped through them, nothing more.

This is what they mean by "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As you see, Darwinism is diametrically opposed to social Dawinism.

[quote:2rc5r8c6]And yes, I know what social darwinism is, and that it isn't in any direct relations to the man known as Darwin, though I sometimes wonder how he would react to the idea

He referred to it as an "overwhelming evil."

I'd have to agree with Bronze, though. It seems to me that toe helps make such actions like eugenics seem more tolerable. (Not saying evolutionary scientists want this, just stating an apparent connection)

Darwin opposed it on ethical grounds. Evolutionary theory makes it clear that classical eugenics won't work. I don't see how anyone can infer that it makes eugenics more tolerable.

If you can chalk up everything to evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection, (as evolution does)

That's another misconception. Evolution is only about the way populations of organisms change.

than one could make the argument that man has stopped nature from taking its course, and thus we should help it continue along its natural course by eliminating the weaker among us.

As you just learned, that's not the case. First, scientists don't think evolution is a good thing. They just accept the evidence. Second, Darwin himself objected to that idea on moral and ethical grounds. Third, evolutionary theory makes it clear that eugenics won't work.

Again, just saying evolution helps make such ideas of social darwinism and eugenics more tolerable by people (though who would be able to tolerate eugenics? besides Hitler,

Reginald Punnett (Darwinian of Punnett Square fame) showed that the National Socialist racial theories were bunk.

Stalin

Stalin outlawed Darwinism. (although he did implement much of the eugenics program)

Thatcher was a bit of a crackpot, but I wouldn't put her in the same class with the other two.[/quote:2rc5r8c6]

"...This is what they mean by "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As you see, Darwinism is diametrically opposed to social Dawinism..."

Why?

 

[Barbarian]

"...This is what they mean by "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." As you see, Darwinism is diametrically opposed to social Dawinism..."

Why?

A. Darwin and his fellows objected to it on moral grounds.
B. Later Darwinians showed that it wouldn't work, anyway.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Crying rock you need to stop quoting the entire quote and then just ask a question on a very minor part of it. If you read the whole thread you'll understand why Darwin was against what Social Darwinism proposes.

But, here's a helpful start!

And Darwinians like Darwin, Punnett and Morgan pointed out that the very premise of social Darwinism is flawed; it's not only an "overwhelming evil" (Darwin's words); it's also destined to fail.

Darwin pointed out:
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 an overwhelming present evil."

Darwin, "The Descent of Man" (1871), p.168.

Of course there is plenty more information in this thread that explain your question.

 

[jasoncran]

i thought the beleiefs of the scientist didnt matter when it came to reasearch.

 

[Barbarian]

i thought the beleiefs of the scientist didnt matter when it came to reasearch.

Apparently, it doesn't. People of all faiths and even people with no faith at all, seem to be able to do science.

Darwin was expressing a moral and ethical idea when he opposed "social Darwinism." On the other hand, Morgan showed that it was scientifically flawed, which is something science can do.

 

[jasoncran]

i thought the beleiefs of the scientist didnt matter when it came to reasearch.

Apparently, it doesn't. People of all faiths and even people with no faith at all, seem to be able to do science.

Darwin was expressing a moral and ethical idea when he opposed "social Darwinism." On the other hand, Morgan showed that it was scientifically flawed, which is something science can do.

what if he did approve of it. you all seem to defend him a wee bit alot. i will read that book to see, for i do believe that he did. would you associate with known eugenicist, racists ,and so on that are gonna use your reasearch to harm others for the sake of racial purification? perception is reality.

 

[Barbarian]

what if he did approve of it. you all seem to defend him a wee bit alot.

As you see, he condemned it.

i will read that book to see, for i do believe that he did. would you associate with known eugenicist, racists ,and so on that are gonna use your reasearch to harm others for the sake of racial purification?

I don't believe in guilt by association. Moreover, like most Europeans of his time, Darwin was a racist. He just didn't think that it justified abusing other kinds of people.

perception is reality.

No. There is an objective reality independent of our perceptions.

 

[jasoncran]

you know darn well that most of the time this is the truth, we are like those who we call friends.

if you condemned what hitler did, would you still talk to him? and hang out with him.

 

[Barbarian]

you know darn well that most of the time this is the truth, we are like those who we call friends.

if you condemned what hitler did, would you still talk to him? and hang out with him.

You and I are sort of friends. And I don't agree much with you. I'd probably still like you if you believed in eugenics. If you carried it to the level Hitler did, that would be another issue.

Galton disagreed with Darwin on eugenics, but they were relatives, and give that Galton never did anything to harm people, Darwin probably wasn't very concerned about it.

 

[jasoncran]

yes,but the idea that would be distasteful to me if had a neo nazi friend, i would tell that person of that stupidity and if he didnt change cease all fellowship with them.

they dont have to kill the jew or the black in that case either.

 

[Barbarian]

Neither did Galton. Which is probably why Darwin didn't cut off all communication with him.

 

[jasoncran]

racism is very powerful, that could have affected his bias on reasearch.