“Starting there, it will be easier to topple his intellectual house of cards.”
If evolution is a house of cards then it should be easy to discredit, Darwin’s personal opinions play no part in the scientific theory of evolution.
It’s pretty easy for (some) people to look at the “science” of Global Warming and realize it’s much more politics than it is science.
But the same is true for Darwinism. People treat evolution like something proven and beyond question. It isn’t. The core concept of species changing into different species is totally unproven and very much open to question. It’s time to realize that Darwinism is much more politics than it is science.
The ‘western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization.’”
Since then, thanks to among other things, two massively self genocidal wars among the European states, the genetic and intellectual and moral quality of the west has declined a great deal.It is masked by the great advances in material culture, but a day of reckoning is fast approaching.
This piece is a pack of lies, one layer piled on another like geological strata.
The real fact is that Darwin was a scientist who followed wherever the available data took him.
That data in Darwin’s time was enough to deduce evolution by natural selection, but not enough for him to see how very little actually separates Europeans from other “races” of humans.
Frankly, if one doesn’t believe in the Judaeo-Christian God and the story of creation (Adam and Eve), then you pretty much must logically agree with Darwin.
The inherent nobility of every human being is based on our common parents and our immortal soul, instilled by God at conception.
Darwin lacked belief and faith in God.
…Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring.""We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. 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.”
-Charles Darwin, Descent of Man
In the Darwinian view of humans as animals, what would cause us to stop practicing animal husbandry within our own species? Reduce the meaning of "human" to "just another animal", and eugenics is fair game. Scientific data is well supported in animal husbandry. Eugenics is only abhorrent to those who recognize that there is something transcendently special about humans.
In the early decades of the 20th century, Human Zoos were created where thousands of indigenous peoples were put on public display and touted as “missing links” between man and apes. Their public display was arranged with the enthusiastic support of the most elite members of the scientific community, and it was promoted uncritically by America’s leading newspapers.
With Darwinism, there is always an inferior race and a superior race – there must be an intermediate bridging the gap – or as Darwin states:
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked 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 a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”If Darwin allowed Dawkins to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist then he also allowed scientists to be an intellectually fulfilled racist.
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man
Racism and eugenics were the hallmarks of the theory of human evolution in the early 20th century, representing a clear consensus of evolutionary biologists as well as other scientists and leaders in higher education and government (endorsed by the Supreme Court in 1926). Eugenics is an ugly part of American history that was taught to our children (See: Hunter’s Civic Biology ) – a movement that caused the compulsory sterilization laws in 30 U.S. states that resulted in more than 60,000 sterilizations of disabled.
At the core of the current theory of evolution is materialism/naturalism and this is a worldview with consequences. For example, as Stephen Meyer points out -the constitution assumes:
In contrast, under the materialistic picture of reality pervasive in our culture, you get this:
These are not Conservative principles.
Canceling Darwin does not change anything anymore than cancelling Newton or Einstein or any other scientist. His motives, even if racist, do not disprove the theory of natural selection by descent with modification. The way to “cancel” Darwin is to show that there is an aspect of human life that can’t be accounted for by descent with modification.
The naturalist way is to write a scientific paper on the Origin of Souls. The problem with this approach is that, as Karl Popper has pointed out, it can’t be disproved because it must forever be an article of faith.
All religious people must believe in God only as an act of pure faith that transcends logic or science. Pinning one’s belief on the efforts of any naturalist philosophy is futile and not necessary. It exposes the believer’s temptation to succumb to doubt and weakens their faith.
Credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd).
It seems to me, that all of this is nothing more than a bad re-run of a re-hashing of the century-past Scopes trial, by those that still repudiate any thing science vs anything bible.
Darwin was an agnostic yet he is buried in Westminster Abbey.
Details can be found here
https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/charles-darwin
Does Darwin, Australia, have to be renamed?
Darwin can’t be cancelled except in the narrow minds of the great ignorati who disdain science and learning.
Related:
What Darwin Got Wrong
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7187035-what-darwin-got-wrong
What Darwin Didn’t Know About Evolution
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2018/09/darwin-evolution-crispr-microbiome-bacteria-news/
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3067017-darwin-was-wrong
Fantastically Wrong: What Darwin Really Screwed Up About Evolution
https://www.wired.com/2014/12/fantastically-wrong-thing-evolution-darwin-really-screwed/