Posted on 02/28/2020 1:29:07 PM PST by fishtank
Evolutionist Admits Darwin’s Connection to Racism
February 26, 2020 | Jerry Bergman
Finally, Some Honesty about Darwin’s Direct Connection to Racism: One AAAS Scientist Admits Evolution’s Sordid Past
by Jerry Bergman, PhD
Although often ignored, some science organizations that embrace evolution acknowledge the close causative connection between Darwinism and racism.
""...Despite some inaccuracies and fierce opposition, Darwin’s blend of novel hypotheses … and good rhetoric transformed the scientific world within a few decades. By the late-nineteenth century …scientific racism that had made polygenism so popular was soon drawing people to a new cause: eugenics.""
So says John P. Slattery, Ph.D., a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the most prestigious science body in the U.S.). In his essay this month in Commonweal, he admits that—despite its recent improvement in the area of race—the record of Darwinian
""...science has not always aligned so well with modern values of equality and the common good. The history of science includes not only racial hierarchies, but also Western cultural supremacy, [and] the militarization of scientific knowledge.[1]""
“Is this satire? “
No. It is a quote from Slattery.
I am well aware that the theory doesn’t address the question of abiogenesis, but it surely does beg the question.
My assertion is that any rational person can realize that a cell, heart, brain, kidney, lungs, pancreas, intestine, etc, etc, cannot assemble themselves. Flight is impossible, step by step. Darwinists wear blinders as they observe the world, willfully not seeing Creation smacking them in the chops.
Man is an accident. I am answerable to no one. If you are in my way, I will mow you down, as long as no one catches me. The brutal dictators of the world and their minions springing up like dandelions are no shock.
Wow. You're really a straw man greatest hits artist.
Simple question. Is there anything in the universe not designed by God?
If not, what does the word 'design' mean?
If you’re suggesting that is what evolution implies, it is through some unwritten, unspoken rule only. As I said there are offshoots and misuses of the theory, sometimes by atheists to promulgate their Godless philosophies. Darwin himself believed in God, however, and was not a Social Darwinist or a Humanist by the definition many of them go by. If life itself is an accident, what does that even mean? Or does it mean that only God knows? Don’t we often call accidents an ‘act of God’?
https://biologos.org/articles/ask-an-evolutionary-creationist-a-qa-with-dennis-venema
What has been the most compelling evidence for you personally that has solidified your position as an evolutionary creationist?
Well, the evidence is everywhere. It’s not just that a piece here and there fits evolution: it’s the fact that virtually none of the evidence we have suggests anything else. What you see presented as “problems for evolution” by Christian anti-evolutionary groups are typically issues that are taken out of context or (intentionally or not) misrepresented to their non-specialist audiences. For me personally (as a geneticist) comparative genomics (comparing DNA sequences between different species) has really sealed the deal on evolution. Even if Darwin had never lived and no one else had come up with the idea of common ancestry, modern genomics would have forced us to that conclusion even if there was no other evidence available (which of course manifestly isn’t the case).
For example, we see the genes for air-based olfaction (smelling) in whales that no longer even have olfactory organs. Humans have the remains of a gene devoted to egg yolk production in our DNA in exactly the place that evolution would predict. Our genome is nearly identical to the chimpanzee genome, a little less identical to the gorilla genome, a little less identical to the orangutan genome, and so on—and this correspondence is present in ways that are not needed for function (such as the location of shared genetic defects, the order of genes on chromosomes, and on and on). If you’re interested in this research, you might find this (again, somewhat technical) lecture I gave a few years ago helpful. You can also see a less technical, but longer version here where I do my best to explain these lines of evidence to members of my church.
Except Dsrwin himself was a bad scientist.
Sure it could. It would help him understand why evolution couldn’t possibly be true.
A lot of things “known” as “science” are nothing more than fairy tales. Macro evolution and man-made global warming are but 2 examples.
My point Jo, obviously, is that there had to have been a moment or moments of Creation, when organs and/or organisms sprang into being. A step-by-step process is impossible.
“Act of God” refers to an event for which there is no human explanation. Let me say that it IS no accident that cruel business practices and other assorted acts of man’s inhumanity to man were labeled “social Darwinism”. The shoe fit.
My guess is that Darwin claimed to believe in God to assuage people’s faith concerns during that era. To not have dealt with the question and speculation of God’s role leads me to believe that he was a closet atheist. He did state that he suspected the tiniest building blocks of life must be simple stuff-—or else his entire theory would fall apart. Now, if he was truly a believer in some sort of Creation, the intricacy of the “simple” “stuff” would not have concerned him.
I respect your belief but it isn't really germane to descent with modification.
That God was required to do things in this or that way, and we shouldn’t look too closely at it.
Nothing of the sort is true. What CAN be learned is only that which God permits. Therefore, I am thankful for those scientists who investigate the natural Created world. Just b/c I think that TOE is nonsense doesn’t mean that I would preclude scientific experimentation of any kind, save that which demands the killing of humans to complete.
You are obviously a very nice person. I believe that you have been deceived, and if I did not think that the theory evolution is dangerous, I would never argue my points with you. Sorry.
I agree.
On TOE, how do you think a heart or brain evolved, step by step? Ultimately, Darwinists believe that paramecia-like organisms, over billions of years, accrued enough positive genetic mutations, serendipitously, to transform themselves into birds, insects, fish, elephants and man, to name a few. I cannot but it.
The belief that humans are grand accidents has led to millions of unspeakable horrors.
Communists also had to buy into a philosophy of life which devalued human life, before the purges could commence.
Second, if the heart and brain “evolved slowly”, the millions or billions of positive steps would have been totally futile along the way. Clearly, logically, the heart and brain had to be fully functioning from the beginning. The organisms would die long before their functions were operational.
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.