Posted on 08/28/2006 6:31:13 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Scripture hasn't changed. It says what it says.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies--between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae--between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. 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, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked 18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), 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.It appears that Darwin is answering a criticism of the idea that man is descended from earlier life forms by pointing out that, through his own efforts, man will eventually widen the gulf between himself and his nearest relatives.
You know, I've noticed that all the creationist sites conveniently leave off the first half of the paragraph. You don't suppose they're engaging in "lying by ommission," do you? And, what does that make of you, who followed in their footsteps?
This group has been getting major play recently.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of Spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."M/font>
Every theocratic government in history has killed, tortured or imprisoned people who did not conform to official beliefs. I consider theocrats to be traitors, technically speaking.
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species, pg.
Wow look, Darwin seems to claim the eye couldn't have evolved! Wow!
Let's tag on the *REST* of the quote, shall we?
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."[p. 217, Charles Darwin, 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London, 1859 (published by Penguin Books, London, England, 1968, reprinted 1986 with an introduction and bibliography by J.W. Burrow]
So, did you know it was a misquote when you posted it, or are you just ignorant? Or perhaps both?
--R.
"You have been unable to answer his post, except in attempts to change the subject."
The subject was the proper "context," which, according to PatrickHenry was that Darwin was speaking of the fossil record. My reply:
"What, pray tell, is the proper "context" for this statement that is NOT racist, regarding the fossil record or anything else? Darwin quite clearly holds the Caucasian as man in the most civilized contemporary state, with negros and Australians being closer to a gorilla. He envisions a not-so-distant future, with a state of man even higher than Caucasian, with negros, Australians and gorillas having been exterminated."
The quote in question, from Darwin's "Descent Of Man," chapter six:
"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."
First off, you must take Darwin's words at face value: he clearly places "civilized races" further along the evolutionary continuum than the "savage races" from which (as his passage makes clear) he believed they descended and who, in turn, descended from the apes. The passage would otherwise make no sense.
Whether or not Darwin opposed slavery, and regardless of the reasons why he did so, the obvious interpretation of the aforementioned passage is that Darwin did indeed place humans on an evolutionary continuum, and he strongly implied that the civilized humans would displace the less evolved savages.
As for Darwin's contemporaries, many made the logical leap. For example, Herbert Spencer is called the father of Social Darwinism. He essentially held that "Darwin's theory of evolution of biological traits in a population by natural selection can also be applied to competition between human societies or groups within a society."
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
"I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force and vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks." - Charles Darwin, Letter to George Darwin, October 1873
What makes you think he was wrong? This is an observation, not a recommendation.
Most assuredly not!!! The topic of debate, however, is that people have used Darwin's ideas to promote such racist sentiments. My point in the text you highlighted was that Darwin himself placed humans along an evolutionary continuum. Even if Darwin himself was not racist (I don't know, either way), the underlying argument in that passage has definite racist application. That's all I was trying to show.
You don't need to have watched the show to know it's based on fallacy.
The quote in question, from Darwin's "Descent Of Man," chapter six: "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."
Ah, 'Darwin was a racist' - Creationist Claim CA005.1:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html
--R.
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.