A fish with legs.
Posted on 03/15/2009 6:23:02 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Some Darwinists will say anything to try to draw attention away from the obvious. The point of my “Scientific Certitude” post was to show that evolutionary theory has been used to support racist views. Darwin was a firmly committed racist, and he was not shy about expressing his racist views:
“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, 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 civilized 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.” Charles R. Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2nd ed. (1871; reprint, London: John Murray, 1922), 241-42.
While Darwin was still alive his contemporaries took his racism/evolution link and ran with it. For example, Ernst Haeckl, the great popularizer of Darwin’s theories on the continent wrote:
“The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time immemorial been placed at the head of all races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect . . . In bodily as well as in mental qualities, no other human species can equal the Mediterranean. This species alone (with the exception of the Mongolian) has had an actual history; it alone has attained to that degree of civilization which seems to raise man above the rest of nature.” Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation: Or The Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes. A Popular Exposition of the Doctrine of Evolution in General, and of that of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in Particular, translated by E. Ray Lankester, 6th English ed., First German Publication 1868, (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1914), 2:321
and
“If one must draw a sharp boundary between them [i.e., higher mammals and man], it has to be drawn between the most highly developed and civilized man on the one hand, and the rudest savages on the other, and the latter have to be classed with the animals.” Haeckel, Ibid., Vol. II, 365.
Or how about this from Darwin’s friend Huxley:
“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.” T.H. Huxley, Lectures and Lay Sermons (1871; reprint, London: Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent, 1926), 115.
The point of my earlier post was that by the turn of the 20th century the link between racism and evolution was so entrenched in orthodox thought that it made it into the Encyclopedia Britannica, which some would say is the very epitome of current conventional learning.
The link continued to be made well into the 20th Century:
“The new creed [i.e., Christianity] was thus thrown open to all mankind. Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce? May we not say, then, that Christianity is anti evolutionary in its aim?” Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics (New York: Van Rees Press, 1947), 72
Evolutionists, when they are being honest, admit this link:
“We cannot understand much of the history of late 19th and early 20th century anthropology, with its plethora of taxonomic names proposed for nearly every scrap of fossil bone, unless we appreciate its obsession with the identification and ranking of races. For many schemes of classification sought to tag the various fossils as ancestors of modern races and to use their relative age and apishness as a criterion for racial superiority.” Stephen Jay Gould, “Human Equality as a Contingent Factor of History,” Natural History (November 1984): 28, 26-32.
“Since Darwin’s death, all has not been rosy in the evolutionary garden. The theories of the Great Bearded One have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social reformers – and scientists – to support racist and bigoted views.” M. Brookes, “Ripe Old Age,” review of Of Flies, Mice and Men, by Francois Jacob, New Scientist, January 1999, 41.
The Darwinists who responded to my previous post were not honest. Instead of facing the facts, they tried to deny the undeniable connection between Darwin and racism, or they tried to change the subject by saying, “hey, some people who say they are Christians are racists too.”
This would be amusing if it were not so tragic. Someone said, “There is none so blind as he who refuses to see.”
This is the bottom line:
(1) It takes only the tiniest step to go from Darwin’s theory to the conclusion that some races are “lower” than others. Darwin took that step himself; his contemporaries took it with him, and by the turn of the 20th Century it was “conventional wisdom.” Note to Darwinists: Them’s the facts; you don’t advance your cause by denying them.
(2) Nothing Jesus said gives the slightest credence to racist views. Therefore, racists who call themselves Christians hold their views in the very teeth of the teachings of the Christ they purport to follow. So Darwinists. What is your point? That some people – even some people who call themselves “Christian” – are stupid or evil or both? No one denies that. Sadly for your position, this does notthing to blunt the force of (1) above.
So why hasn't it been defeated? Perhaps the arguments against it haven't been shrill enough. Perhaps the creationist protagonists descended into name calling a bit too soon. Maybe studying the math, physics, chemistry, and biology necessary to refute it had a poisoning effect on those who have attempted it and left them mindless evolutionists. Just guessing.....
From Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science
by Valery N Soyfer
It says nothing about Darwinism.
Darwin’s theory is part of biology and genetics.
Do you deny that Darwin’s theory was under attack during the reign of Lysenko over Soviet science?
If you do deny this, you should really educate yourself. No use going on sounding like a fool.
Or maybe the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism has become a de facto (and unconstitutionally) established religion and, as such, is being protected by the state.
Educate yourself, please.
Soyfer is a molecular geneticist who was persecuted by Lysenko for support of the theory of natural selection and genetics.
Who ever heard of a fish growing legs?
Cordially,
Your “evidence” has been rejected.
Quit whining.
Yes, and I fully expect you to reject any and all evidence that doesn’t comport to your ignorant and useless model of creation. That is really the only way one can actually be a creationist, is to reject out of hand any contrary evidence.
A fish with legs.
A surprising number of the Champions of the Anti-Darwinist Movement are lawyers. Which is why they believe a verdict of "reasonable doubt", rather than probability, is a win.
(And why their "courtroom ethics" differ from the ethics of personal integrity)
Right Haldane was a Stalinist. Social and religious outlooks trump scientific ones, because they are formed earlier. Even those few who learn a scientific view can frequently relapse
The thing that makes intelligent discourse impossible with these threads is the two legs bad, four legs good approach taken by both sides. There is a third dominant theory in play that has been rejected and ridiculed by both the absolute creationists and the absolute chemical Darwinists; Theistic Evolution. While you continue to shout down anything other than your pet theory I, and the nearly one billion Catholics and other Christian denominations support God using scientifically definable processes to create man in His image.
Tiktaalik, "a poor specimen", indeed, but still good enough for demonstrating incoherence of metaphor.
Cordially,
You are entitled to your opinion, but IMHO theistic evolution is not supported by the Bible or science.
So do I.
Henry Morris, founder of "Creation Research Society" and the "Institute for Creation Research" (ICR):
The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.The Hamites have been the great 'servants' of mankind in the following ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans, cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types of structural forms and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce and trade--money, banks, postal systems, etc.--were invented by them; (8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, movable type, and other accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people. Truly they have been the 'servants' of mankind in a most amazing way.
Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Henry Morris, The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148.
So, using your phraseology, "do you think there is a danger in someone who embraces creationism to, as a result, have racist tendencies?"
Moreover, if one is to believe for a second the creationist idea that only “degeneration of the genome” has happened from the time of the fall, then Adam and Eve were BLACK people with a fully functional set of pigmentation genes, and any moderation of that fully BLACK perfect and pristine state of humanity to get less than fully BLACK skin, would be an example of “degeneration of the genome”.
Truly Black people have the fullest and most complete set of skin pigmentation genes. White people must be an example of the “degeneration of the genome” from after the fall.
Black people are more genetically perfect and white people have experienced “degeneration of the genome” from the pristine state of humanity that God created; if one is to take Creationist assumptions at face value.
Of course none of them seem to follow through on this views inescapable conclusion.
It seems that Henry Morris of the “Creation Research Society” would rather say that dark skinned people have the “curse of Ham” and must serve light skinned people.
Since you have minimal theological training, apparently no scientific training, and God forbid any experience with Evolutionary Linguistics (the scientific study of the origins and development of language) your opinion isn't really honest, it 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.