What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[renniks]

Except that Darwin wasn't being racist on purpose. The Victorian era was not a period where racial equality was a thing, and while Darwin does show the racial thinking of that time period, that's not unusual nor him being an outlier.

Oh it gets worse.
The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, and he didn’t try and stop them.

The Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh it gets worse.
The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, and he didn’t try and stop them.

The Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”

And Christians used the Bible to condone slavery and racism.

You're arguing a point that doesn't exist. Darwin was racist. He lived in the freaking Victorian era, do you expect him to be a shining beacon of equality and morality? No-one does. But even if he was racist, that does not mean that the theory of evolution is incorrect.

 

[renniks]

What I mean by evolution is the Theory of Evolution... of which natural selection is a part, as is the conclusion of universal common descent.

That, is basic biology, which you deny without coherent justification or evidence.

Actually it's not because it can't be shown to be correct. It's a hypothesis, one of several theories of origins.

 

[renniks]

And Christians used the Bible to condone slavery and racism.

You're arguing a point that doesn't exist. Darwin was racist. He lived in the freaking Victorian era, do you expect him to be a shining beacon of equality and morality? No-one does. But even if he was racist, that does not mean that the theory of evolution is incorrect.

But it does mean that the evolution theory was used to promote genocide. And it's logical to go there if survival of the fittest is correct.
Why would racism even be wrong? The strongest race wins!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually it's not because it can't be shown to be correct. It's a hypothesis, one of several theories of origins.

Except that it's not a hypothesis and it's not a theory of origin. You can't have something be a hypothesis and a theory. That's just not how science is done.
And just because you, some random person in the internet, says it isn't correct does not mean you are correct. There's a whole world of scientists with a good century of work in biology to show that evolution is a fact, but you just refuse to look at it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But it does mean that the evolution theory was used to promote genocide. And it's logical to go there if survival of the fittest is correct.
Why would racism even be wrong? The strongest race wins!

And Christianity was use to promote genocide. Humans have used everything they can think of to justify and promote genocide.
And trying to use that whole 'survival of the fittest means we must kill!' canard shows that you don't know a damn thing about evolution and you aren't here to argue in good faith.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Actually it's not because it can't be shown to be correct. It's a hypothesis, one of several theories of origins.

Evolution is not a theory of origins, and your arguing that a Victorians attitudes toward racism are significant toward the validity of a theory is just pathetic. We could ask you for an alternate theory that explains the observed facts, but by now we know that it wont happen.

 

[renniks]

Except that it's not a hypothesis and it's not a theory of origin. You can't have something be a hypothesis and a theory. That's just not how science is done.
And just because you, some random person in the internet, says it isn't correct does not mean you are correct. There's a whole world of scientists with a good century of work in biology to show that evolution is a fact, but you just refuse to look at it.

I don't refuse to look. I have looked and found it wanting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't refuse to look. I have looked and found it wanting.

Except that doesn't mean that you are correct that the theory of evolution isn't science or workable. Your opinions do not matter over facts.

 

[renniks]

And Christianity was use to promote genocide. Humans have used everything they can think of to justify and promote genocide.
And trying to use that whole 'survival of the fittest means we must kill!' canard shows that you don't know a damn thing about evolution and you aren't here to argue in good faith.

One tribe conquers another tribe, repeat, that's how the strongest rise to the top. Logically, that's evolution. Why would you oppose that?

 

[renniks]

Except that doesn't mean that you are correct that the theory of evolution isn't science or workable. Your opinions do not matter over facts.

Theory doesn't contain any facts.

 

[renniks]

Evolution is not a theory of origins, and your arguing that a Victorians attitudes toward racism are significant toward the validity of a theory is just pathetic. We could ask you for an alternate theory that explains the observed facts, but by now we know that it wont happen.

I have another theory. We are specially and specifically created. This theory is the most popular one in human history. Evolution theory is a late coming fad.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

One tribe conquers another tribe, repeat, that's how the strongest rise to the top. Logically, that's evolution. Why would you oppose that?

Except that it's not. As a historical example, the Mongol Empire lasted from 1206 AD to 1368 AD. The Roman Empire lasted from 31BC until 1453AD.
Guess which one was the tribe that just went around killing people?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Theory doesn't contain any facts.

Theories explain facts, ergo, they contain facts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have another theory. We are specially and specifically created. This theory is the most popular one in human history. Evolution theory is a late coming fad.

That's a hypothesis, not a theory.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

One tribe conquers another tribe, repeat, that's how the strongest rise to the top. Logically, that's evolution. Why would you oppose that?

Because that is not how the theory works, someday you may learn a little about it, but with your abhorrence of learning we hold little hope.

 

[AV1611VET]

Darwin was racist. He lived in the freaking Victorian era, do you expect him to be a shining beacon of equality and morality?

Shouldn't we expect the "Father of Evolution" to believe "All men are created equal"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Shouldn't we expect the "Father of Evolution" to believe "All men are created equal"?

Why?

 

[AV1611VET]

Shouldn't we expect the "Father of Evolution" to believe "All men are created equal"?

Why?

Because all men are created equal?

Wasn't that apparent from his finches on Galapagos?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Because all men are created equal?

Wasn't that apparent from his finches on Galapagos?

No, because Darwin was still bound by the Victorian period ethics and morals that saw that racial inequality be seen as a fact of life and nature.