Posted on 11/18/2005 4:34:43 AM PST by StatenIsland
It is a hell of a post.
Have you actually looked at the history? It wasn't all that quickly. Scientific racists confronted with Darwinism tended to cling to preceding paradigms for some time, and in many cases for some decades. Haeckel in Germany, who set about recasting all his views in a Darwinian guise as early as 1864, is the only notable exception I'm aware of.
Many scientific racists didn't even begin to react until after the publication of The Descent of Man in 1872, where Darwin first publicly broached the topic of human evolution. Even at this late date Darwin found the anthropological debate over whether human races were separate species a current issue that had to be dealt with in some detail.
This delay response was especially pronounced in America where the Civil War understandably diverted attention from the Darwinian debates, and scientific racism tended to be tied to the more extreme "polygenist" view, that races were not just separate species but separate creations.
But even Alfred Rosenberg who I mentioned before (the Nazis' most important philosopher of race) wrote in the late twenties of each race being "created" with it's own unique "race soul".
The early reaction to Darwin not uncommonly (especially in the popular press) included some shock and concern over it's perceived tendency undermine or eliminate generally accepted racial prejudices of the time. For instance in 1866 the Pall Mall Gazette complained of Darwin associates Huxley and Lyell that their views on the "development of species" had "influenced them in bestowing on the negro that sympathetic recognition which they are willing to extend even to the ape as 'a man and a brother'." (Darwin, Desmond & Moore, pgs 540-41.)
In fact I'd say it wasn't until the late teens of the 20th Century that there was a resurgence of scientific racism equal to that of the pre-Darwinian mid 19th Century. (This resurgence was, I think not accidentally, coincident with historically unprecedented waves of mass immigrations hitting Western Europe and America.)
"People like this don't know their science and are atheists with an agenda that has been destroying America through political correctness, the public school system is dead because of such fools.
And they don't know the Lord God either."
The author is none of the above. He knows his science, being a trained medical doctor.
He is also a conservative.
He threw that out there to avoid answering the skulls question. ("Here, boy! It's your favorite ball! Go fetch!") By diverting the conversation down that well-beaten path, he thinks I'll stop pressing him for a clear answer.
But I'll continue to ask him: if someone accepts the skulls as largely accurate, can someone--how can someone--still deny the gradual evolution of hominids, from ape to man? What link is yet missing?
Where are you getting this notion? Sociobiology is controversial, but not because it's racist.
No, because she would still have understood their hand gestures.</un-pc stereotype>
....."purveyors of unknowledge"......
I still get a chuckle out of that line...
Best kind of fun isn't it?
Another self appointed spokesman speaks.
Do you similarly hand-wave away and ignore all critical analysis of other movements, like Islam, liberalism, communism, etc., as being merely that of "self appointed spokesmen"?
Is it really your position that the best and most accurate critique of a movement is from its *advocates*, and that analysis from outside observers is necessarily no better than "blah blah blah"?
Are you being intellectually honest here?
If that had happened, where would the "intermediates" be? There would probably be no "true" intermediate specimens; nevertheless, the different species of humans would have descended from a common ancestry. And so it is with all the species on earth.
"This might have taken a few thousand generations, or maybe more; but that is virtually no time, geologically speaking."
Still only pre-biased speculative reasoning not quite supported by science...though "scientifically" imagined...I'll give you that!
"Any normal person would have said something like "Oh my goodness! I had a quote from a racist author on my profile page? Sorry, I'll take it down immediately."
It's not just that the quote was from an author with questionable racial views. The quote itself was racial. It railed against race-mixing as an attack on *the culture*. If Francis had made reasonable statements about a different issue and Stingy posted that, not knowing his other statements, he could be forgiven his ignorance. But he chose to post an unambiguous quote about race-mixing. And he has said his homepage was where he wanted to have a summary of his beliefs,
I'm still waiting for Stingy Dog to explain the quote. It's not exactly confusing.
Instead of denouncing and insulting those of us who called you on that quote, Stingy Dog, why don't you explain how you could possibly have thought it was anything other than racist?
Why is it that you had no problem posting a rant against "race mixing" on your homepage in the first place, and why is it that you still don't see anything wrong with such a quote?
Same here.
Lovely. Isn't that special?
I just wish I could write that well.
"As Mr. Krauthammer asks, "Why should evolution be the enemy of God?"."
To destroy Christianity and hence its culture and its people.
After what you posted on your homepage, I'd be careful about using words like "cultural destruction" if I were you.
The creative powers of Guinness are an awesome thing to behold.
It is like Groundhog day, isn't it.
It is like Groundhog day, isn't it.
It is like Groundhog day, isn't it.
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.