Inherit the Racism (Scopes Trial Actual Biology Text Book - Unabashed Racism)

National Review ^ | 12/3/2010 | jonah goldberg

[wendy1946]

Sounds like the evolutionite cure for demoKKKrats...

[allmendream]

You are saying that Christians didn't have theological justifications for slavery?

Or are you using the “true Scotsman fallacy” that no “True” Christians had a theological justification for slavery?

Evolution teaches the universal brotherhood of all mankind.

That has been denied by someone here who claims to be a Christian, but believes in a separate creation of the different “races” of mankind.

Do YOU believe in the universal brotherhood of all mankind?

[MrB]

Evolution teaches the universal brotherhood of all mankind. BS. Is this "universal brotherhood" the reason the Australian aborigine was put on display in the world's fair as a demonstration of a less evolved, closer to ape, human?

If any belief system teaches your "universal brotherhood", it's Christianity, because God's Word says we're all of one blood, all descended from Adam, all created in God's image, and that what you do to other humans, you do to God, in effigy.

[allmendream]

Evolution teaches that we are all of one blood and the only reason we are different is local adaptations to local conditions.

We have here on Free Republic a so called Christian who denies that we are all one blood. He posits multiple creations, and that Adam and Eve are only the ancestors of some of humanity (the lineage that led to Jesus). So obviously not all “Christians” (if you accept that wacky theology as Christianity) accept the universal brotherhood of mankind.

How do you explain how human populations became different? If our explanations are BOTH that they changed through natural selection of genetic variation, how is one explanation inherently more racist than the other when we are both using the SAME explanation?

[MrB]

Descent of Man was pretty clear in the belief that the “negroid race” was not as evolved or advanced as the causasoid race, that it was closer to the apes in development, and that the more “advanced races” (Caucasoid, Mongoloid) would eventually wipe out the more “savage” races.

How did human populations become so different? It would be helpful to you to “know your enemy”, so to speak. That question has been answered. The various people groups were separated by language after the Tower of Babel incident. They grouped up, moved away to various parts of the world, bred within their people group, and lost some of the adaptive information available to the human race as a whole due to their limited gene pools and adaptation to their environment.

Yes, we both believe in adaptation, but the difference lies in where the information that makes adaptation possible comes from. The evolutionist believes information is ADDED to the genome over time, whilst the creationist believes that it was all ORIGINALLY PRESENT in the created kinds and is gradually being lost due to adaptation and limited interbreeding.

As for your FReeper “Christian” example, he obviously is using an eisegetic reading of the bible and is simply pulling stuff out of his nether regions in order to “posit” his theory. His theory has no biblical support.
Now, you should also know better than to use such a juvenile argument as to call Christianity “wacky”, especially as you have demonstrated that you don’t really understand what we believe.

[allmendream]

I am a Christian, and what I call “wacky” you call “pulling stuff out of his nether regions”. Both of us agree that this is not mainstream Christianity.

My point is that Evolution teaches the universal brotherhood of all mankind. Obviously this person, who calls himself a Christian, doesn't accept that. This is, although certainly not mainstream, a commonly believed thing among certain segments who want to deny the universal brotherhood of mankind.

So people are different because they lost different information after separating into different population groups? So they are not local adaptations via natural selection so much as a loss of perfection. So can you tell me who is “more” perfect, who has “lost” the least amount of “information”?

So then, is having a fully black skin the original “perfect” state of mankind? Because Caucasian populations have white skin due to loss of information.

Are lactose intolerant people the original “perfect” state of mankind? Because those that maintain lactose tolerance have lost the information on how to shut down lactose production after infancy.

And those that “lost” information in their hemoglobin genes such that if they have two copies of the modified version they get sickly cell anemia - are they “less perfect” than those with the “normal” hemoglobin gene, or did they “gain information” on how to be resistant to malaria?

If once can attribute one population as having “lost more” or “lost less” genetic perfection, it seems that your idea is inherently more racist than one in which adaptations are merely the result of natural selection of variations preferable in local conditions.

[MrB]

In order to be racist, one has to believe that genetic makeup of one people group makes them inherently more valuable than another. God created man in His own image. All men are descended from that created man. Nothing racist about that at all. My point is that Evolution teaches the universal brotherhood of all mankind.

You keep stating this, but does it? Does evolution "teach"? That logic fallacy has a specific name that escapes me for now...
And besides that, Darwin on whose theory it is based, in his books "Origin of species" and "Descent of Man", stated plainly the inferiorty of certain "races", namely the "negroid race".

Perhaps, also, you should define exactly what you mean by "universal brotherhood of mankind". It sounds like one of those leftist phrases that make you feel all warm and fuzzy but really doesn't mean what you think it means.

[goodusername]

“I notice, however, that the evolutionists of the day did nothing to stop slavery themselves. It was the work of committed Christians which finally put an end to it.”

—I guess Darwin and A. R. Wallace (the 2 co-founders of “Darwinism”) don’t count as “evolutionists of the day”? Because they both worked tirelessly against slavery. Both wrote countless letters denouncing slavery and the treatment of native people around the world; both supported anti-slavery organizations with both words and money, and supported slave revolts.

Darwin did everything short of actually traveling to America himself and literally jumping between a slave master and a slave who’s being brutally beaten - oops, wait, he did that too.

[allmendream]

It is racist if you think that retaining the original DNA is inherently more valuable than changing the original DNA - instead of attributing to DNA change an adaptation to local conditions that is merely a conditional value.

So is retaining all the information to make a black skin the original and perfect state of mankind? Would loss of this black skin when moving to a more polar environment be a bad thing or a good thing or a neutral thing in your mind? Would getting rickets from lack of vitamin D because your skin was too black when living in Northern Europe be considered a good thing, a bad thing, or a neutral thing?

Well? Care to answer, or are you going to ignore the obvious implications of your hypothesis?

Evolution not only teaches the universal brother hood of all mankind, it ALSO teaches the universal common descent of all species.

What it means is that we are all related and share a common ancestor.

[MrB]

Evolution doesn’t “teach” anything. The logic fallacy is called “reification”. You’re applying some sort of anthropomorphic attribute on an abstract concept.

1) I haven’t stated that a people group retaining original DNA is inherently more valuable than one that doesn’t. That’s your forcing of an argument on me that I never made.

In actuality, the “obvious implications of your hypothesis”, that is, YOUR hypothesis, not mine, leads to and has historically led to eugenics and genocide.

I’m really surprised that you even use the terms “good” or “bad”. If all existance is mere chance and we are all re-arranged pondscum, on what would anyone base the concepts of good or bad? All that would matter would be for my particular combination of chemicals to continue at the expense of others.

Of what moral value is it that we all “descended” from the same pond scum?

By the way, how did that pond scum come to exist?
How did life come from non-life?

[allmendream]

Evolution is a theory, as such its explanations “teach” to those with knowledge and information. To those without any concept of what the theory entails, it cannot “inform” or “teach”.

The Fall of Man doesn't imply that changes from the original state are a “fall” from grace? That is the common theology when attributing the declining lifespan of man from the Methuselah ages recorded in the Bible, that man was perfect, and that things went wrong from that time onward.

Moreover you framed the debate as being that all change resulted from a “loss of information”.

A “loss of information” is just as valuable as having ALL the information?

In evolution, a genetic trait is “good” or “bad” if it contributes to survival or is a detriment to survival.

So dark skin is “good” in Africa, and “bad” in Northern Europe. Purely conditional.

But if one is to assume that mankind was how God wanted in the beginning, and that after “the Fall” racial differences accumulated as man ‘degraded’ from the original state via loss of information - then the African lactose intolerant person is ‘less degraded’ from that original state than a white skinned lactose tolerant person who “lost information”.

[Agamemnon]

allmendream: "My point is that Evolution teaches the universal brotherhood of all mankind.

MrB: You keep stating this, but does it? Does evolution "teach"? That logic fallacy has a specific name that escapes me for now...

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths. But the data were worthless…If the chorus of racist arguments did not follow a constraint of data, it must have reflected social prejudice pure and simple…"

Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, 1977, page 127–128.

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Charles Darwin's original title for the 1859 publication.

What did Darwin really mean by “favored races?” Darwin, referring to a named “scientist” of his day, as much as states that “civilised” Caucasian people are superior to “the negro,” because they are in Darwin’s view further removed from Darwin’s presumed “allied” ancestor, the gorilla. Darwin’s later book, The Decent of Man is quoted here:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world… At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., blacks – ed.], as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, (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." (Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chap. vi)

Was Darwin looking forward to the likes of Hitler? From Darwin’s Life and Letters:

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world." (Charles Darwin, July 3, 1881, Life and Letters of Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 316)

Darwin advocated and as much as looked forward to the near term extermination of “lower” non-Caucasian “races.” Sixty years later, Hitler fulfilled Darwin’s vision in both spirit and practice.

Let's quote him just one more time so we can all point and laugh, shall we?

allmendream: "My point is that Evolution teaches the universal brotherhood of all mankind."

A Christian takes Jesus Christ, the Creator, himself, at his Word. allmendream's "common descent" premise is little more than pantheism, not Christianity. Jesus Christ chose to preserve the Creation account as written, and quoted from it Himself. Either one accepts what Christ affirmed in His own words about it, or they don't. Apparently allmendream doesn't. He says he's a Christian, yet nothing I have ever read that he's ever posted resembles anything Christ ever said or ever implied.

Alot of people that don't believe Jesus Christ say they are Christians, too. Such persons are pretenders to the Faith not practitioners of the Faith. Christians in name only. Republicans in name only. Conservatives in name only. Same pattern, different context.

allmendream: "Evolution not only teaches the universal brother hood of all mankind, it ALSO teaches the universal common descent of all species. What it means is that we are all related and share a common ancestor.

That's just pantheism.

"Common descent" is not brotherhood merely of "mankind" but brotherhood with apes, fish, trees, birds, insects, amoeba, bacteria, viruses, etc. "Common decent" is "Common descent." If you are an evolutionist who for a change isn't just going to go on playing games with himself on this stuff you can't just pick and choose where you want to start.

FReegards!

[MrB]

You point out that the non-biblical worldview is indeed irrational.

If “Evolution” (notice the capital letter, deifying the concept) “teaches” the “universal brotherhood of all mankind” due to a “common ancestor,

then this “universal brotherhood” cannot end with homo sapiens, which is just another span of “Evolution” of species.

The ape, the grasshopper, and the pondscum are also our “brothers” due to the same “common ancestor”. Irrational. And it’s baseless and arbitrary to confine this “universal brotherhood” to homo sapiens.

Nope, the only worldview that supports this universality is the Christian Biblical worldview. Man created in God’s image (Gen 1:27), descended from one common CREATED man, above the animals and a little below the angels, with dominion over all the earth.

[goodusername]

By “volume”, yes, the amount of racist material grew greatly (as did, of course, the amount of ANTI-racist material) as the field of anthropology itself grew greatly after Darwin.
Before the 1850’s, anthropology was a rather tiny field, and the output from anthropology was rather sparse.

However, I would argue that the “tone” of the material actually improved after Darwin - relatively speaking. If one wants to see the most racist material ever published, check the early to mid 19th century anti-evolutionary works of Agassiz, Morton, Gliddon, Nott, Mivart, Bachman, Charles White, Gobineau, Cuvier, etc. (Hitler’s writings, btw, often seem to directly quote Nott and Gobineau and directly contradict Darwin).

With Darwinism and the maturing of anthropology, the idea that the various human “races” (if they should even be referred to as such, as Darwin explained in the quote in post #24) are very closely related and should even perhaps be considered a single “race” became mainstream. Ideas such as polygenism, which was particularly popular in America, and posited that “humans” were in fact separate species (or even that only whites should be considered human) and that only whites came from Adam and Eve, fell out of favor.

“Darwin advocated and as much as looked forward to the near term extermination of “lower” non-Caucasian “races.””

Predicting isn’t the same as advocating. He wasn’t “advocating” the extermination of what he believed to be “lower” (Darwin should have remembered his own advice to “Never say higher or lower in referring to organisms”, as the terms are essentially meaningless within Darwinism) human races.
(Even “predicting” seems like a strong word for supposing that humans would continue, at least for the time being, the same behavior that he himself - to his horror- had witnessed, and had gone on for at least centuries, and perhaps all of human history.)

If you’re wondering what he was advocating and “looked forward” to, it was this:

“As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.” – The Descent of Man

[tpanther]

ping!

[Agamemnon]

RETREAD ALERT

“goodusername”: You have ~ 492 postings since you signed up as a newbie on May 15, 2009 - a mere year and a half ago.

150 of those postings – a full 30% of your entire posting history -- occurred within the first month of your membership date, in fact.

A simple audit of your postings shows that you have contributed painfully little if any to discussions related to topics promoting principles of conservatism – the purpose of this site.

What is particularly interesting is that for a site dedicated to the promotion of political conservatism, and in a year which has seen some of the most formative political activity in our lifetimes notably, ObamaCare, Tea Party rallies, and sweeping Republican electoral victories in November, what I find most revealing about you perhaps is that virtually every last one of the ~492 postings you have made to this board has been to a Creation-Evolution debate thread.

You also appear to be quite drawn to the threads related to atheism in the context of Crevo debates, as well.

You have a writing style which resembles the style of an atheist academic I recall debating frequently, prior to the to the time the majority of the Darwin Central cabal were flushed out of here and banned.

Why do you suppose that might be “goodusername,” or whichever previously banned RETREAD name you might happen to be?

A number of us already have a pretty good idea of who you really are, and a new “goodusername” isn’t hiding it. We’ll be watching you. Closely. Count on it.

[Agamemnon]

By “volume”, yes, the amount of racist material grew greatly (as did, of course, the amount of ANTI-racist material) as the field of anthropology itself grew greatly after Darwin. Before the 1850’s, anthropology was a rather tiny field, and the output from anthropology was rather sparse. However, I would argue that the “tone” of the material actually improved after Darwin - relatively speaking.

You can take your point up with that late Harvard professor, Stevie Gould. The preponderance of ANTI-racist material did not increase, as you appear to imply, as a consequence of the publication of Darwin’s silly work.

If one wants to see the most racist material ever published, check the early to mid 19th century anti-evolutionary works of Agassiz, Morton, Gliddon, Nott, Mivart, Bachman, Charles White, Gobineau, Cuvier, etc. (Hitler’s writings, btw, often seem to directly quote Nott and Gobineau and directly contradict Darwin).

Running interference for Hitler and Darwin and in the same sentence too, no less. Appears we may even have genuine Darwin-volkist to play with here today! How quaint.

The intellectual thread of conceptual custody linking what Darwin wrote and what Hitler acted out then and Planned Parenthhood acts out today and still does is really as simple as it is direct.

For all your presumed readership of what you term, “anti-evolutionary” 19th century racists how conveniently you choose to overlook some of the more profound evidence of the cause and effect of 19th century racist philosophy cultivated by some of the closest contemporary acolytes of Darwin – a acolyte much like you yourself are today. Might you site the reference where Darwin upbraids his dear protégé and fond “bulldog,” Tommy Huxley for this contemporaneous commentary?

“"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Thomas Huxley, 1871, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews, Chap. ii)

Will you pretend that Darwin knew nothing of his contemporary’s philosophies and sentiments: of Gobineau, or Wallace, or Haeckel? In the case of Wallace, Darwin just beat him in the rush to the publishers - nothing more.

Would you have us somehow believe that the academic promotion of concepts of biological evolution and the promotion of bloody political struggle in pre-Nazi Germany had no consequence in the ultimate outworking of what Naziism came to practice? It has consequences in education even today – Columbine comes to mind.

Yeah, Galton (who only coined the term, “eugenics” and founded the society of that same name to promote both its purpose and intent) and Darwin -- though contemporaries never talked or philosophized. Right? I mean, why would they - after all they were only close cousins! (/sarc)

Darwin was at best ambivalent to Galton's eugenic ideas. Still, have you got any convincing evidence to indicate that Darwin ever tried to dissuade his cousin away from philosophy? Did Darwin oppose in any measurable way his eugenic positions as a mis-application of anything Darwin had written about in Origin...” or “The Descent of Man”?

**crickets**

Gobineau (1822-1882) lived contemporaneously with Darwin (1809-1882). Gobineau’s writings – which you contend are those which inspired Hitler - were not necessarily predicate to Darwin but both certainly could also have easily shared a hefty amount of co-inspiration. There is evidence in Darwin’s writing to suggest as much. It is perhaps possible to suspect that Gobineau’s musings on Aryan racial superiority inspired Darwin’s own chosen extended title for “Origin...” which includes a direct reference to the preservation of “favored races.”

Social/political philosophers and academics in case you hadn’t noticed in general can at times be a very self-validating in-bred lot. Intellectually and philosophically speaking, I suspect that most readers would likely agree that you sound pretty in-bred yourself.

So then, acting out with respect to one’s evolutionary biology in the wake of the attempted dis-accreditation of Biblical authority by the late 19th century school of German “higher criticism” played no part in the education of what would become those Nazi-driven masses and political hacks?

Your ilk tends to silo the academics, the philosophers and scientists of the time in ways that no academic groups characteristically behave. Marx, Engels, Darwin, Huxley, Hooker, Chamberlain, Gobineau, Galton, Wallace were all contemporaries. These were revolutionary times, Marx considered the political Communism he authored in 1848 to have been validated by biological Darwinism of 1859. Aryan superiority communicated by Gobineau in 1857 grew in parallel with Darwin’s biological modeling, which extended as far back as writing and publications Darwin had made since at least the mid 1830’s. That Darwin knew of novice Wallace’s writings and would have not known of Gobineau’s more widely published philosophy is quite unlikely. Nazis built Wallace-Gobineau-Darwin into full cultural and biological selective practice entwined with a national political policy.

Haeckel didn’t hold a mere pedestrian interest in the Darwinian evolutionary model. He openly contributed to the textbooks to furnish doctored up comparative embryonic drawings in order to lie on behalf of evolutionary dogma, and was a founder of the Monist movement to promote the intellectual, scientific, and thus social applications of Darwinistic premise. He personally presented Darwin with a copy of his drawings and Darwin was impressed with Haeckel's work. It is no small coincidence that Haeckel was physically in attendance at a meeting of the Thule Gesellschaft with Hess and Hitler himself as noted in this sourced quotation:

"In 1918, Darwin’s apostle Ernst Haeckel became a member of the Thule Gesellschaft, a secret, radically right-wing organization that played a key role in the establishment of the Nazi movement. Rudolf Hess and Hitler attended the meeting as guests (Phelps, 1963)."—Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1987), p. 488.

"He [Haeckel] convinced masses of his countrymen they must accept their evolutionary destiny as a ‘master race’ and ‘outcompete’ inferior peoples, since it was right and natural that only the ‘fittest’ should survive. His version of Darwinism was incorporated in Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf (1925), which means ‘My Struggle,’ taken from Haeckel’s German translation of Darwin’s phrase, ‘the struggle for existence.’ "—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 207 [also 312-313].

University of Florida professor Dr. Robert A. Hatch, describes Haeckel (1834-1919) thusly:

“Haeckel was the first German advocate of organic evolution and early supporter of Darwin and evolution. Haeckel enunciated biogenetic law that in the development of the individual animal the stages in the evolutionary history of the postulating species are repeated, postulating as illustration a hypothetical ancestral form (gastraea) represented by the gastrula stage of the individual; first to draw up a genealogical tree relating the various animal orders.”

Haeckel was a protégé of Rudolf Ludwig Carl Virchow, who was appointed head of the Pathological Institute of Berlin from 1893-1902. Eugen Fishcer became head of the Berlin institute in 1908. Germany’s African colonies rebelled under German rule about the same time as Haeckel’s evolutionary political and Monist activity became most prominent.

As quoted from the fairly recently published “German science and black racism—roots of the Nazi Holocaust” by François Haas, The FASEB Journal. 2008;22:332-337 (New York University Institute of Community Health and Research, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York):

“The African colonies and concentration camps also served racial scientific inquiry. Post-mortems were performed to study causes of death and bodies of executed prisoners were preserved and shipped to Germany for dissection. A 1907 chronicle reported that: "A chest of Herero skulls was recently sent to the Pathological Institute in Berlin, where they will be subjected to scientific measurements." Probably the most well-known study was the physician Eugen Fisher’s evaluation of Basters, the mixed-blood children of Dutch men and Nama women. He argued that "Negro blood" was of "lesser value" and that mixing it with "white blood" would destroy European culture, and advised that Africans should be exploited by Europeans as long they were useful, after which they could be eliminated. Fisher went on to co-author the seminal Outline of Human Genetic and Racial Hygiene with Fritz Lenz and Edwin Baur. Echoes appear in Hitler’s Mien Kampf (Hitler had been given a copy while in jail and writing Mein Kampf) and eventually in the Nuremberg racial laws.”

Once more back to that quotation from Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas Huxley:

“"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Thomas Huxley, 1871, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews, Chap. ii)

And further from Haas:

“ALTHOUGH THE SLAUGHTER OF INNOCENTS has been a repeating theme throughout human history, only the Nazi-led extermination of millions of people deemed undesirable was framed in the scientific context of "racial hygiene." At the core of Nazi philosophy was the view of the nation as a living organism. Using Herder’s concept of Volk,

(-ed. “The movement he founded in Germany was proto-Nazi in character; romantic Volkism and the Monist League (established 1906), along with evolution and science, laid the ideological foundations of [German] National Socialism. ."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 48.”)

“Hitler viewed German society as an organism with its own health. "Our people is also a biological entity. ...German people forms one great relationship, a blood society. ...This biological unity of people will be known as the people-body."

Because individual human beings were regarded as functional or dysfunctional parts of this larger whole and thus affecting the health of the people-body, racial hygiene became seminal to Hitler’s thinking. As Bavarian Cabinet Minister Hans Schemm declared in 1934, "National Socialism is nothing but applied biology."

The rise of science-based medicine combined with physicians’ roles in national health reform during the late 19th century to give physicians first-time political leverage and continuous and unprecedented levels of public recognition. Hitler and the Nazis reached out early to physicians:

“I could, if need be, do without lawyers, engineers, and builders, but...you, you National Socialist doctors, I cannot do without you for a single day, not a single hour. If...you fail me, then all is lost. For what good are our struggles, if the health of our people is in danger?”

Hey, and how about some statements from those doctors: Hermann Gauch was a famous Nazi race theorist particularly identified with what was termed at the time, “Nordic Theory.” In his 1935 publication, Neve Grundlagen Zur Rassenforschung Gauch is quoted as writing,

”The non-Nordics and the animals [are] just about next to the anthropoid ape. He is therefore not a complete man. He is really not a man at all in the true counter-distinction to animals, but a transition, an intermediate stage, better and more apt is the designation, “subhuman untermench.”

If non-Nordics are more closely allied with monkeys and apes than to Nordics, why is it possible for them to mate with Nordics and not apes? The answer is this: It has not been proved that non-Nordics cannot mate with apes.”

I repeat: Can you honestly say that Hitler and these medically inclined academics and physicians who laid philosophical, scientific, and political foundations of Naziism “were remarkably disinterested in evolution”? Hitler sure needed his Nazi doctors there didn’t he?

Stein’s film, “Expelled” points to Michael Egnor MD who dared to challenge the relevance of the study of evolutionary biology to the study of medicine. Hitler couldn’t do without his Nazi indoctrinated, evo-eugenics indoctrinated, informed by Haeckel’s medical text- doctors for a moment.

With Darwinism and the maturing of anthropology, the idea that the various human “races” (if they should even be referred to as such, as Darwin explained in the quote in post #24) are very closely related and should even perhaps be considered a single “race” became mainstream.

“…he will end by uniting all the forms which graduate into each other, under a single species….” Darwin’s statement, after having quoted all those other stupid racists, is Darwin merely straddling all the other similarly impoverished intellects of his counterparts on the matter. That some “graduate,” also implies that others may not “graduate” and in Darwin’s way of thinking those who don’t “graduate will be in Darwin’s words “exterminated” as shown earlier (post #52). Clearly, you are as gullible and stupid as Darwin hoped you would ever be.

Ideas such as polygenism, which was particularly popular in America, and posited that “humans” were in fact separate species (or even that only whites should be considered human) and that only whites came from Adam and Eve, fell out of favor.

I’ll just call bull shit on that claim and raise you. When you say “popular” you imply mainstream. Polygenism was basically “popular” to Morton as an audience of one, and few others. Popular opinion in the 18th and 19th centuries was formed more by influences of Christian theologians preaching from pulpits. No one in “popular” discourse was even using the term “species” widely, so you are just making up your “facts” on the fly.

Busted.

Predicting isn’t the same as advocating. He wasn’t “advocating” the extermination of what he believed to be “lower” (Darwin should have remembered his own advice to “Never say higher or lower in referring to organisms”, as the terms are essentially meaningless within Darwinism) human races.

Oh, I see so what you are telling me then is Darwin had the habit of contradicting himself. Give it a rest. Darwin tries to have it both ways and he just winds up losing his standing for having done so.

Your continued meaningless attempts at hairsplitting in defense of Darwin causes you to lose your standing as well.

(Even “predicting” seems like a strong word for supposing that humans would continue, at least for the time being, the same behavior that he himself - to his horror- had witnessed, and had gone on for at least centuries, and perhaps all of human history.)

When Darwin writes like the following in Origins,… Chapter VII, what sort of an impression at that critical time do you think he was trying to leave?

“I opened fourteen nests of F. sanguinea, and found a few slaves in all. Males and fertile females of the SLAVE-SPECIES are found only in their own proper communities, and have never been observed in the nests of F. sanguinea. The slaves are BLACK and NOT ABOVE HALF THE SIZE OF THEIR RED MASTERS, so that the contrast in their appearance is very great…. “

If you’re wondering what he was advocating and “looked forward” to, it was this: “As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.” – The Descent of Man

Are you really that naive? This is just another self-contradicting statement by Darwin, who at the time of this writing was under quite a bit of political/societal pressure for equating mankind with animals as he had done and alleging existence of biological hierarchies among humans. Origins,… was just the drum roll introduction for the “Descent of Man.” Thinking persons read Origins,… and read stuff like BLACK and SLAVE SPECIES and MASTERS with an informed suspicion of where Darwin actually intended for the discussion to go . Huxley certainly got the hint, didn’t he?

Haeckel got it

Fisher got it

Galton got it

Schemm got it

Gauch got it

HITLER GOT IT.

Are you so ignorant, blind, and stupid that YOU DON’T STILL GET IT??????

There were enough thinking persons who were able to call out Darwin on such a premise and his saccharine statement here is merely a matter of false conciliation of what was becoming an ever more disturbed public. He’d already looked forward to the “extermination” of some “lower” humans, so what ever he wrote here was merely to mollify public concerns and hope that there would be suckers like you who would continue to be beguiled by his bilge.

Darwin simply chooses to play on your atheistic sentimentalities.

For you and for Hitler, if you lose Darwin-Gobineau-Wallace-Galton, you lose your excuse for your own ill-conceived perception of racial and “intellectual” superiority.

But you’re just a Darwin Central RETREAD liberal evo-stooge anyway, so no one cares about anything you’d ever post here to this conservative political forum.

You’re busted, fool.

[editor-surveyor]

Thanks for the update!

Darwin’s own words prove the racist/eugenicist intent of his treatise.

Certainly nothing remotely ‘Christian’ about Darwin.
.

[YHAOS]

“For you and for Hitler, if you lose Darwin-Gobineau-Wallace-Galton, you lose your excuse for your own ill-conceived perception of racial and “intellectual” superiority.”

Thanks, Agamemnon, for the beep.

Whether it’s a drive for “superiority” (be it racial, intellectual, or religious), or simply a fight over control of public money, it never ceases to amaze that so much turmoil can arise over a man who had one good idea in his lifetime. Or, perhaps we should rather term it one good discovery (and, a shared discovery at that), this being Natural Selection.

But, it should be emphasized that Natural Selection is a scientific theory, neither more nor less, and carrying with it all the attendant positives and negatives of its status. It is not a philosophical system, nor a religion. Its usefulness, beyond that of a scientific theory, at best is limited. It may, or may not, serve as one support of many to a philosophical idea or system, but it cannot stand on its own as anything but a scientific theory.

And the refusal to acknowledge this simple fact is what leads to all the bad temper such as that which we see in FR.

[YHAOS]

ping

Hey! ( ^8 }