Barbarian observes:
Darwin was angry about this, because he thought that all men were entitled to freedom and the right to make their own way. His opinion:
Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin
The Descent of Man
Your statement does not line up with the quote.
It certainly does. BTW, Darwin was also vigorously opposed to slavery; it got him into a terrible row with the creationist captain of the
Beagle, who thought slavery was God's will.
We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he [FitzRoy] defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything?
Charles Darwin
Autobiography
I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. N. America does not do England justice: I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, & I am one, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery. In the long run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in.... Great God how I shd like to see that greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished.
Charles Darwin, letter to the American scientist Asa Gray
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/38151604.html
Darwin was not entirely pleased by the Emancipation Proclamation, considering it a half-way measure.
Barbarian observes:Let's see... the most influential creationist in modern times...
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, director of the Institute for Creation Research
Sounds like idle speculation to me and honestly I am repulsed by what he says there.
Me too. Blatant racism, so often seen among creationists. I'm pleased you aren't one of them. But why do the rest of you tolerate them?
Right, when a creationist says something like that its racist but when Darwin says it it's ok.
No. It's not OK that Lincoln thought that blacks were inferior to whites, either. They were both wrong. But you have to understand people in terms of the times they lived in. Both Darwin and Lincoln were liberal for their time, because they thought all men were free, and opposed people who stole the fruits of their labor.
Barbarian observes:
Not all of you are racists. But note that when a prominent scientist made a racist statement, he was condemned and lost his position. When Morris made a much more vicious attack on blacks, no creationist raised his voice in protest. It's no accident that racism was most entrenched in areas most hostile to evolution.
Unless it's Charles Darwin, then he gets a pass.
Of course not. But in 160 years, we've learned a lot. Darwin and Lincoln are understandable. But racism in the 1990s is indefensible.
Barbarian observes:
Eugenics, as Mark should know, was demonstrated to be scientifically invalid by Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan. About 90% of Hitler's final solution for the Jews can be found in Martin Luther's
The Jews and Their Lies. And the Nazis openly acknowledged it.
"Politics is history in the making. History itself represents the progression of a people's struggle for survival [life]. I use the phrase 'struggle for survival' [life] intentionally here, because in reality every struggle for daily bread, whether in war or peace, is a never-ending battle against thousands and thousands of obstacles, just as life itself is a never-ending battle against death. Human beings know no more than any other creature in the world why they live, but life is filled with the longing to preserve it. The most primitive creature knows only the instinct of self-preservation; for higher beings this carries over to wife and child, and for those higher still to the entire species. But when man—not infrequently, it seems ”renounces his own self-preservation instinct for the benefit of the species, he is still doing it the highest service. Because not infrequently it is this renunciation of the individual that grants life to the collective whole, and thus yet again to the individual." The great size of the drive for self-preservation corresponds to the two mightiest drives in life: hunger and love. "In truth, these two impulses are the rulers of life." "Whatever is made of flesh and blood can never escape the laws that condition its development." (Mein Kampf, the second book opening chapter "War and Peace in the Struggle for Survival.")
Does that sound like Luther or Darwin?
More like Luther. But mostly, it sounds most like some lame-brained creationist's notion of evolutionary theory.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler listed Martin Luther as one of the greatest reformers. And similar to Luther in the 1500s, Hitler spoke against the Jews. The Nazi plan to create a German Reich Church laid its bases on the "Spirit of Dr. Martin Luther." The first physical violence against the Jews came on November 9-10 on Kristallnacht (Crystal Night) where the Nazis killed Jews, shattered glass windows, and destroyed hundreds of synagogues, just as Luther had proposed.
Quote, cite and if possible link your source.
Sure...
"I shall give you my sincere advice: First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them...
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies...
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them..
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb...
Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home...
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping...
Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam. ...
When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to your self: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, it prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to appropriate our goods."
Martin Luther,
The Jews and Their Lies Part XI
http://www.humanitas-international.org/showcase/chronography/documents/luther-jews.htm
Like that? How about this?
DR. MARX: Apart from your weekly journal, and particularly after the Party came into power, were there any other publications in Germany which treated the Jewish question in an anti-Semitic way?
STREICHER: Anti-Semitic publications have existed in Germany for centuries. A book I had, written by Dr. Martin Luther, was, for instance, confiscated. Dr. Martin Luther would very probably sit in my place in the defendants' dock today, if this book had been taken into consideration by the Prosecution. In the book The Jews and Their Lies, Dr. Martin Luther writes that the Jews are a serpent's brood and one should burn down their synagogues and destroy them...
Nuremberg Trial proceedings:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/04-29-46.asp
And regarding Luther's intellectual founding of the Holocaust:
"It is imperative for the Lutheran Church, which knows itself to be indebted to the work and tradition of Martin Luther, to take seriously also his anti-Jewish utterances, to acknowledge their theological function, and to reflect on their consequences. It has to distance itself from every [expression of] anti-Judaism in Lutheran theology. In this, attention must be given not only to his polemics against the Jews but also to all places where Luther simplistically set the faith of the Jews as "works-righteousness" over against the gospel."
A Declaration of the Lutheran Church of Bavaria
http://jcrelations.net/en/?id=993
Even the German Lutherans admit it.
I don't play these games and I don't respond well to generalities.
Or facts, either.
By the way, you never answered my question, how well read are you on genomics, genetic and anatomical comparisons of humans and apes?
Perhaps I know a little. Try me. BTW, genomics is not about anatomical comparisons. But I know a little of that, too. Feel free to ask.
Would you also like to see some documentation that Darwinists like Punnett and others refuted the Nazi conception of eugenics?
