Replies

And what exactly does ad hominem comment on the racism of Darwin (a racism expressed by virtually every educated person in the first half of the 19th century) have to do with the accuracy of his scientific-historical theory?

I knew I would get that response! Sounds very Clintonian to me! I am defaming Darwin because I dared to quote what he said! Don't you see how invalid your charge is?

Your statement that everyone was a racist is wrong also. Let's remember that it was just about that time that slavery was abolished and the slaves were given equal rights with whites in the US. Let's also remember that it was England which had for decades been the prime force towards the abolition of slavery throughout the world. So no, everyone was not a racist then. Anyways, that is no excuse and it shows your moral relativism.

The statement is also completely relevant to a discussion of evolution. Evolution does assert that some are inferior to others. Evolution does assert that destruction of the weak leads to progress. So the statement is a central part of evolutionary theory and cannot be written off as a personal eccentricity of Darwin.

I am defaming Darwin because I dared to quote what he said!

More accurately, you are defaming Darwin because you dared to quote part of what he said, but not the entirety of his work to give it the full context. Of course, your claim regarding Darwin has been shot down before, but you don't seem to care about little things like reality.

Your statement that everyone was a racist is wrong also. Let's remember that it was just about that time that slavery was abolished and the slaves were given equal rights with whites in the US. Let's also remember that it was England which had for decades been the prime force towards the abolition of slavery throughout the world. So no, everyone was not a racist then. Anyways, that is no excuse and it shows your moral relativism.

Actually I am not a moral relativist. I believe we have made much moral progress in the last 150 years, as exemplified by the fact that even most abolitionists did not believe blacks were equal; they merely believed it was wrong to enslave them. There are numerous examples of prominent abolitionists making racist comments.

You paraphrase me as claiming that you are "defaming Darwin because [you] dared to quote what he said!"

And you say: "The statement is also completely relevant to a discussion of evolution. Evolution does assert that some are inferior to others. Evolution does assert that destruction of the weak leads to progress. So the statement is a central part of evolutionary theory and cannot be written off as a personal eccentricity of Darwin.

Whether or not Darwin's "social Darwinism" is amoral or evil or has merit has no effect on the historical truth or falsity of evolution. If Heisenberg were a Nazi, would that affect the truth of his uncertainty principle? Does the answer depend upon whether his political philosophy gave him insight into the physical world? Should philosemites accept Einstein's science, while anti-semites object that it is "Jewish science" (as actually happened). Did the failure of Marxist politics disprove Larmarckian evolution, or did the failure of Lamarckian techniques disprove themselves?