Posted on 07/06/2020 7:32:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
As much as I despise the cancel culture, if there is any cultural icon who deserves to be canceled for racist attitudes, it is Charles Darwin. Or were you not aware of how his ideas helped fuel the fires of eugenics?
I tweeted a poll on June 23, asking, “Who said this? The ‘western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization.’”
Of the four choices offered, 4.2 percent voted for David Duke, 10.5 percent for Robert E. Lee, 29.6 percent for Adolph Hitler, and 55.7 percent for Charles Darwin. The majority got it right!
But is this knowledge widely disseminated? Do the countless millions of fawning Darwinists know about Darwin’s racial theories? And if they do, do they simply turn a blind eye to them?
The same day I did the poll, I sent the link of a disturbing article about Darwin to a friend of mine who is Black and a historian. The article, written by Austin Anderson and posted on the Philosophy for the Many site, was titled, “The Dark Side of Darwinism.”
I asked my friend, “I assume you knew this about Darwin?”
He replied, “What? That he was a racist? Sure. That’s race history 101.”
He added, “Racist philosophy, eugenics and white supremacy are the love-children of Darwin. Survival of the fittest is the core of European philosophy and its approaches to colonization and imperialism.”
Did we learn about this in our schools?
Anderson wrote:
Darwin’s defenders most often cited his abolitionist identity, notes from his diaries, or quotes from people who knew Darwin. His accusers, on the other hand, often directly cited text from The Descent of Man. Conclusions drawn from the authorial approach to the question, in which defenders focused on proving that Darwin himself was not a racist, starkly contradicted conclusions drawn from the approach of consulting Darwin’s text itself. I’m familiar with Darwin’s theories, but I had never actually read his books; I suspect the same is true for most of you. However, I found that to determine whether or not Darwin’s theories are racist, the text of his books is revealing and conclusive. Information outside the text of The Descent of Man can help us understand the man behind the pen, but it does nothing to soften the brutal racism and white supremacism found in the text of his theory.
Which peoples does Darwin describe as “savages”? He is quite generous in his use of the term, including, Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and Eskimos.
Darwin asks, “How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence?”
This was virtually identical to the reasoning used by European and American slave traders, who viewed the Africans as intellectually inferior human beings, therefore deserving of servitude to the white man.
These savages, according to Darwin, also had lower morality, lack of ability to reason, and less self-control. And, quite naturally, given the survival of the fittest and the ruthlessness of the evolutionary process, the superior whites should conquer and colonize the savage’s lands.
As Anderson notes (while quoting Darwin), “As white Europeans ‘exterminate and replace’ the world’s ‘savage races,’ and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man ‘and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla’.”
Yes, the illustrious Darwin wrote those very words.
Of course, Darwin should have been canceled intellectually decades ago due to the abject scientific failure of Darwinian naturalism.
As atheist philosophy professor Thomas Nagel argued in his book Mind and Cosmos, “the modern scientific story of the origin of life through evolution is ‘ripe for displacement’ and it represents ‘a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense,’ which will be seen as ‘laughable’ in a couple of generations.” (The subtitle of Nagel’s book is, “Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.”)
There is no viable, materialistic explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of human beings (as distinct from animals, with a conscience and a state of consciousness).
That too, however, is not something you are likely to hear in school.
As Nagel wrote, “I realize that such doubts will strike many people as outrageous, but that is because almost everyone in our secular culture has been browbeaten into regarding the reductive research program [about the origin of life] as sacrosanct, on the ground that anything else would not be science.”
Can I give an amen to an atheist?
Unfortunately, the intellectual cult of Darwinism does not seem ready to collapse just yet, as it remains thoroughly entrenched in academia to this day. To oppose it is to be a heretic.
But perhaps, given the dark side of some of Darwin’s theories, theories that were intrinsic to his evolutionary views, Darwin can be questioned morally. Starting there, it will be easier to topple his intellectual house of cards.
Dr. Michael Brown (www.askdrbrown.org) is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is Evangelicals at the Crossroads: Will We Pass the Trump Test?
Darwin can’t be cancelled except in the narrow minds of the great ignorati who disdain science and learning.
We're all on a continuum of physical attributes. As humans we have a tendency to take a slice of that continuum and call it a race but the parameters of that slice are arbitrary from a biological perspective.
IF TRUE, that is, we all evolved out of accidental and random atoms, then what we call morality is simply a result of “evolution”.
I think morality is a product of human experience and reason.
Every successful civilization has a moral code, most based on the Golden Rule, regardless of what deity they recognize.
Does evolution tell us whether a Mother Theresa is “morally superior” to Hitler?
No, and neither do the theories of gravity nor plate tectonics. Scientific theories simply don't address morality. That's the turf of philosophers and theologians.
RE: Scientific theories simply don’t address morality. That’s the turf of philosophers and theologians
Yes, but in a sense, we are all philosophers and theologians to varied degrees. We might not want to Philosophize, but the implications of accepting a theory are still there.
If we take the premise of Darwinism to its logical conclusion, we are simply products of materialistic chance and our fate is similar to every single materialistic object in the universe.
If so, and if true, any moral code we adhere to, even the Golden Rule is simply a personal preference built into us by the process of natural selection. I don’t see how, if Darwinism is true, Mother Theresa is morally superior to Stalin.
I don't see it that way. Trying to reconcile every aspect of the physical world with every aspect of the spiritual, for example the Bible, requires extreme logical contortions.
To me it also cheapens faith to say it can be understood empirically.
Why can't an all powerful god use a naturally occurring organism as the vessel for a soul?
RE: don’t see it that way. Trying to reconcile every aspect of the physical world with every aspect of the spiritual, for example the Bible, requires extreme logical contortions
Science is what it is. If Darwinism is the nature of things, it doesn’t matter whether or not we see things this or that way, the conclusion has to follow from the premise.
If we all came from the process of random mutation via natural selection, then what we believe in regards to what is moral NECESSARILY means that they are products of this natural process. Right or wrong are simply labels we put on actions and feelings (both the result of nature), that we like or dislike. Moral superiority or inferiority are simply that — personal feelings. Nothing really objectively right or wrong. It’s just the result of natural process.
RE: Why can’t an all powerful god use a naturally occurring organism as the vessel for a soul?
Well now, we are getting somewhere. If an all powerful God did indeed create nature and designed nature the way it is, then things are not really the result of chance.
If this premise is true, then at least, there is a basis for saying that the notion that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL is objectively, a superior MORAL idea.
Otherwise, all Jefferson did was refer to a myth that Darwinism debunked.
Well, as I'm sure you know Darwin didn't theorize about the origins of life and I don't think anyone rational would claim that we aren't to some degree the product of variation and natural selection.
I'm not sure where you're going with this, though.
I assume you believe God imprinted a morality on our souls, but I don't see why that has to be at odds with natural selection. Couldn't He have chosen to do that when we were at some point along the evolutionary path?
I guess I don't see why natural selections precludes God from giving us our values.
RE: Well, as I’m sure you know Darwin didn’t theorize about the origins of life and I don’t think anyone rational would claim that we aren’t to some degree the product of variation and natural selection.
I’m talking about RANDOM variation without purposeful guidance from a higher mind. This is what I’m trying to point at ( and this is related to the article as well ).
Even if God followed some natural selection process, it has to be GUIDED somehow.
Now, if you are saying that God is involved in this natural selection process via His providence, then we have a basis for believing in the preamble of Declaration of Independence and all the moral points that come with it.
But I don’t think this is what Darwinists like Richard Dawkins is saying.
Even if God followed some natural selection process, it has to be GUIDED somehow.
Fair enough. If you believe that I'm not going to argue.
Could a being produced via guided natural selection have morals?
If you say God's intervening to guide selection why couldn't he intervene to give us a moral code?
RE: if you say God’s intervening to guide selection why couldn’t he intervene to give us a moral code?
That is exactly what I’m trying to drive at. If Moral codes are absolute and binding to humans, like the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, it cannot come from Darwinism (as espoused by many of them, Richard Dawkins comes to mind).
However, if the materialistic Darwinists are right, then I can’t see how morality can be objectively real. Murder is just as natural as a lion devouring a lamb. There would also be no objective moral basis for calling slavery wrong.
You use "materialistic Darwinists" as if scientists deify other scientists. That's not how it works. And Darwinism is something that only exists in the minds of religious opponents to the TOE.
Murder is just as natural as a lion devouring a lamb. There would also be no objective moral basis for calling slavery wrong.
Murder is unquestionably natural - just ask Abel.
It's what we think of it and how we react that's important. Every functioning society has figured out that that murder isn't good and has come up with moral arguments against it.
Not just Judeo-Christian societies.
RE: You use “materialistic Darwinists” as if scientists deify other scientists. That’s not how it works. And Darwinism is something that only exists in the minds of religious opponents to the TOE.
You don’t believe such materialistic Darwinist exist?
Richard Dawkins calls the process of evolution by mutation and selection “the blind watchmaker,” by which he means that a purposeless, materialistic force substitutes for the “watchmaker” (i.e. a watch requires a watchmaker) deity of natural theology. THAT is how it works according to Dawkins and the many who think like him. It isn’t a caricature, it’s WHAT THEY TELL US.
RE: Murder is unquestionably natural - just ask Abel.
Well, if we are products of random mutation and natural selection, I would even go further and say murder is NOT WRONG. It just is.
RE: Every functioning society has figured out that that murder isn’t good and has come up with moral arguments against it.
The unstated assumption is that a functioning society is a good thing (if pure Darwinism is true ). If we are all products of random collision of atoms, I don’t even see how that can be called “good”. It is just nature. Chaos, anarchy or what we know as order are what they are — NATURE. Putting a label “good” or “bad” to it is simply a personal preference ( which is also a product of evolution ). There REALLY is no good or bad. Just what is.
Did you ever hear him invoke Darwin as an authority or embrace Darwinism?
Putting a label “good” or “bad” to it is simply a personal preference ( which is also a product of evolution ). There REALLY is no good or bad. Just what is./I>
I think humans are able to reason themselves into notions of good and evil.
You seem to think those concepts need to be dictated to us by a deity.
RE: Did you ever hear him invoke Darwin as an authority or embrace Darwinism?
I’ve heard his interviews and read his book.
In 2017, he pooh-poohed those who value humanity above all other creation. We put humanity on a pedestal miles higher than the surrounding territory,” he told The Times. See here:
And because he is a materialist, he believes that Eugenics is an effective, acceptable, policy. read is tweet here:
There are Others who think like him. Prof. Daniel Dennett of Tufts University come to mind. In his Book Breaking the Spell, atheist Daniel Dennett writes the following concerning the cause of the universe:
“Why not stop at the material world? It...does perform a version of the ultimate bootstrapping trick; it creates itself ex nihilo. Or at any rate out of something that is well-nigh indistinguishable from nothing at all.”
RE: I think humans are able to reason themselves into notions of good and evil.
Sure they can, but if Darwinism is true, those are simply PREFERENCES, the notion of what is good and what is evil are NOT objectively binding to anyone. They are just that — NOTIONS.
It’s Mother Theresa’s notion of what is good vs Hitler’s notion of what is good. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. In the end, there is NO OBJECTIVE good or evil. Things simply are what they are.
RE: You seem to think those concepts need to be dictated to us by a deity.
If these concepts are to be binding on everyone everywhere ( e.g. Murder is evil, Kindness is good ), YES, it has to be dictated to us by a sovereign, all powerful, Diety, who CREATED the universe and ordered it according to His will. The alternative is simply preferences, NOT real good or evil.
An accidental collision of atoms called Nazis simply hit on and collided with an accidental collision of atoms called Jews. But if matter is all there is, that’s what they boil down to in the end — collision of atoms.
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/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.