Challenge thread: Charles Darwin was racist... so what?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This comment does pop up every so often when the theory of evolution is discussed:
"Charles Darwin was racist, which means the theory of evolution is racist!"
Or
"The theory of evolution was used to justify slavery, which means that it's racist!"

(Twice in the same thread too!)

One thing I always note with this sort of tactic, to simply discredit evolution by saying that Darwin was racist or that it was used in racist ways, is that... the people who use it really do just leave it at that and say nothing else.

ETA: Since I forgot to state: Charles Darwin may have been the person who came up with the idea for what became the modern theory of evolution, but that does not mean that his personal views dictate what the theory of evolution says. They were his own personal views and his own personal views alone. Racism has scientifically be shown to be an idiotic view and the theory of evolution has been one of the driving forces in showing that.

So my challenge is: without using the writing of Charles Darwin (which means his own works on The Origin of Species or any other books) or anything from the 19th century when slavery was practiced by the western nations, show me an example of the theory of evolution being racist.

I don't want people using it to justify racism. I want something from the theory of evolution that shows it being inherently racist.

 

[Leaf473]

This comment does pop up every so often when the theory of evolution is discussed:
"Charles Darwin was racist, which means the theory of evolution is racist!"
Or
"The theory of evolution was used to justify slavery, which means that it's racist!"

(Twice in the same thread too!)

One thing I always note with this sort of tactic, to simply discredit evolution by saying that Darwin was racist or that it was used in racist ways, is that... the people who use it really do just leave it at that and say nothing else.

ETA: Since I forgot to state: Charles Darwin may have been the person who came up with the idea for what became the modern theory of evolution, but that does not mean that his personal views dictate what the theory of evolution says. They were his own personal views and his own personal views alone. Racism has scientifically be shown to be an idiotic view and the theory of evolution has been one of the driving forces in showing that.

So my challenge is: without using the writing of Charles Darwin (which means his own works on The Origin of Species or any other books) or anything from the 19th century when slavery was practiced by the western nations, show me an example of the theory of evolution being racist.

I don't want people using it to justify racism. I want something from the theory of evolution that shows it being inherently racist.

I hear what you're saying.

For me, it's not critical whether Darwin was racist or not, most people back then (and even today) held some degree of racist views, if even unconsciously.

But if humans evolved, it would follow that some races would be better at some things than others. One obvious, undisputable thing is the amount of melanin in the skin giving different degrees of resistance to sunburn.

Now, not saying I endorse the following, but continuing on:
Doesn't it seem reasonable that one race would be better at managing things and thus should be the "caretakers" of the other races?

 

[Skye1300]

This comment does pop up every so often when the theory of evolution is discussed:
"Charles Darwin was racist, which means the theory of evolution is racist!"
Or
"The theory of evolution was used to justify slavery, which means that it's racist!"

(Twice in the same thread too!)

One thing I always note with this sort of tactic, to simply discredit evolution by saying that Darwin was racist or that it was used in racist ways, is that... the people who use it really do just leave it at that and say nothing else.

ETA: Since I forgot to state: Charles Darwin may have been the person who came up with the idea for what became the modern theory of evolution, but that does not mean that his personal views dictate what the theory of evolution says. They were his own personal views and his own personal views alone. Racism has scientifically be shown to be an idiotic view and the theory of evolution has been one of the driving forces in showing that.

So my challenge is: without using the writing of Charles Darwin (which means his own works on The Origin of Species or any other books) or anything from the 19th century when slavery was practiced by the western nations, show me an example of the theory of evolution being racist.

I don't want people using it to justify racism. I want something from the theory of evolution that shows it being inherently racist.

Because people feel like if he was racist then his whole theory of evolution is in question because his racism will automatically put his own race on the top of the evolutionary chain. He would not be looking at things objectively but with a biased eye. So the whole theory is not built on a solid foundation because it starts out with a lie and builds upon that.
If I tell you 2 plus 3 equals 8 then go on to build a whole theory or equation based on that, the whole equation is wrong because it builds up from something that a lie, and not correct. It's like a true or false question, if any part of the question is false, then the whole thing is false. If any part of evolution is wrong, then the whole thing is wrong.

 

[Astrid]

Because people feel like if he was racist then his whole theory of evolution is in question because his racism will automatically put his own race on the top of the evolutionary chain. He would not be looking at things objectively but with a biased eye. So the whole theory is not built on a solid foundation because it starts out with a lie and builds upon that.
If I tell you 2 plus 3 equals 8 then go on to build a whole theory or equation based on that, the whole equation is wrong because it builds up from something that a lie, and not correct. It's like a true or false question, if any part of the question is false, then the whole thing is false. If any part of evolution is wrong, then the whole thing is wrong.

Is that what you think?

 

[Skye1300]

I hear what you're saying.

For me, it's not critical whether Darwin was racist or not, most people back then (and even today) held some degree of racist views, if even unconsciously.

But if humans evolved, it would follow that some races would be better at some things than others. One obvious, undisputable thing is the amount of melanin in the skin giving different degrees of resistance to sunburn.

Now, not saying I endorse the following, but continuing on:
Doesn't it seem reasonable that one race would be better at managing things and thus should be the "caretakers" of the other races?

The thing about that though, as far as the melanin is concerned, if any race was more dominant than the other, wouldn't it make sense that the race with the most melanin and dominant gene be the ones on top? The sun is what gives life and what gives melanin. I mean they would have the power to eliminate all other groups just from reproduction. Why would a supposedly dominant group be so easily wiped out just from breeding? The more evolved genes should be the dominant ones. Black genes are dominant genes. When blacks mix with any other race, usually the black genes dominate the most like with Obama. So it would seem like nature likes black genes more. That's why Darwin's racism made the whole theory of evolution questionable because he wasn't looking at it logically, he looked at it in a way that he would make sure his own race would be the ones on top. Science doesn't work like that, science is supposed to be objective. Now if he wasn't racist and said all races were equal and none were better than the other, or not even separate people into races in the first place, then his theory would have had more credibility. It would still be wrong of course, but it would at least be more credible.

 

[Astrid]

I hear what you're saying.

For me, it's not critical whether Darwin was racist or not, most people back then (and even today) held some degree of racist views, if even unconsciously.

But if humans evolved, it would follow that some races would be better at some things than others. One obvious, undisputable thing is the amount of melanin in the skin giving different degrees of resistance to sunburn.

Now, not saying I endorse the following, but continuing on:
Doesn't it seem reasonable that one race would be better at managing things and thus should be the "caretakers" of the other races?

Lots of things may seem to be reasonable.
Heavy things fall faster, say.

That's why it's good to go with evidence rather
than just deciding something is so coz it seem
reasonable to someone.

 

[Skye1300]

Is that what you think?

The racism makes him wrong but I think he's wrong simply because I believe in creation.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But if humans evolved, it would follow that some races would be better at some things than others. One obvious, undisputable thing is the amount of melanin in the skin giving different degrees of resistance to sunburn.

Now why would that follow? Yes, higher amounts of melanin in skin provide resistance to sunburn, but also a lack of melanin means a higher ability to absorb Vitamin D from the sun.

 

[Astrid]

The thing about that though, as far as the melanin is concerned, if any race was more dominant than the other, wouldn't it make sense that the race with the most melanin and dominant gene be the ones on top? The sun is what gives life and what gives melanin. I mean they would have the power to eliminate all other groups just from reproduction. Why would a supposedly dominant group be so easily wiped out just from breeding? The more evolved genes should be the dominant ones. Black genes are dominant genes. When blacks mix with any other race, usually the black genes dominate the most like with Obama. So it would seem like nature likes black genes more. That's why Darwin's racism made the whole theory of evolution questionable because he wasn't looking at it logically, he looked at it in a way that he would make sure his own race would be the ones on top. Science doesn't work like that, science is supposed to be objective. Now if he wasn't racist and said all races were equal and none were better than the other, or not even separate people into races in the first place, then his theory would have had more credibility. It would still be wrong of course, but it would at least be more credible.

Melanin...
No, it would not make sense.
For one, there is no such thing as a " more evolved" gene.

For another, a darker skin is a disadvantage in areas of low sunlight.

How many errors and falsehoods does your idea need to put it
out of the " credibility" range?

 

[Astrid]

The racism makes him wrong but I think he's wrong simply because I believe in creation.

Let's say for the moment that racism does make a person's
theory wrong.
How about intellectual dishonesty?
Look up the term for a quick review of what is involved.
Would intellectual dishonesty applied to or essential to a belief or theory disprove it?

There's no evidence that ToE is wrong. If anyone discovers such evidence it will be a world wide sensation.

The way science works w regard to any theory is not what someone chooses to
find credible, but whether the theory can be
disproved.

 

[Skye1300]

Melanin...
No, it would not make sense.
For one, there is no such thing as a " more evolved" gene.

For another, a darker skin is a disadvantage in areas of low sunlight.

How many errors and falsehoods does your idea need to put it
out of the " credibility" range?

That just proves what I'm saying, that no one race is better than the other. All have strengths and weaknesses. I personally don't believe in the concept of race to begin with. Just playing devil's advocate to show that if Darwin or anyone wanted to base evolution on race, then it could go any way you want to make it go which makes it lose credibility.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That just proves what I'm saying, that no one race is better than the other. All have strengths and weaknesses. I personally don't believe in the concept of race to begin with. Just playing devil's advocate to show that if Darwin or anyone wanted to base evolution on race, then it could go any way you want to make it go which makes it lose credibility.

But that wasn't the point of the OP.

I specifically asked people this:
"So my challenge is: without using the writing of Charles Darwin (which means his own works on The Origin of Species or any other books) or anything from the 19th century when slavery was practiced by the western nations, show me an example of the theory of evolution being racist."

 

[Skye1300]

Let's say for the moment that racism does make a person's
theory wrong.
How about intellectual dishonesty?
Look up the term for a quick review of what is involved.
Would intellectual dishonesty applied to or essential to a belief or theory disprove it?

There's no evidence that ToE is wrong. If anyone discovers such evidence it will be a world wide sensation.

The way science works w regard to any theory is not what someone chooses to
find credible, but whether the theory can be
disproved.

We already have the evidence, the Bible. And the Bible has been around a lot longer than Darwin.

 

[Astrid]

That just proves what I'm saying, that no one race is better than the other. All have strengths and weaknesses. I personally don't believe in the concept of race to begin with. Just playing devil's advocate to show that if Darwin or anyone wanted to base evolution on race, then it could go any way you want to make it go which makes it lose credibility.

There's your IF.
ToE is not based on racism.
My opinion which you falsely characterize has no
power to affect it either.

You may feel I am being a bit touchy with regard to your statement that I "want to make it go", but as that is a direct attack on my integrity, I don't take it lightly.

 

[Skye1300]

But that wasn't the point of the OP.

I specifically asked people this:
"So my challenge is: without using the writing of Charles Darwin (which means his own works on The Origin of Species or any other books) or anything from the 19th century when slavery was practiced by the western nations, show me an example of the theory of evolution being racist."

Well how about the fact that it breaks people down into races to begin with. There's no such thing as race. That's another falsehood it's based on.

 

[Astrid]

We already have the evidence, the Bible. And the Bible has been around a lot longer than Darwin.

So all physical evidence that the earth is
not fixed in place with the sun moving around it is for nothing as the Bible says otherwise.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well how about the fact that it breaks people down into races to begin with. There's no such thing as race. That's another falsehood it's based on.

Except that race has been around for centuries before Darwin was born. And it was never just about skin colour either. Nationalities were considered akin to races too many centuries ago.

So, in short, you can't answer my OP.

 

[Skye1300]

There's your IF.
ToE is not based on racism.
My opinion which you falsely characterize has no
power to affect it either.

You may feel I am being a bit touchy with regard to your statement that I "want to make it go", but as that is a direct attack on my integrity, I don't take it lightly.

I didn't mean you personally, I meant you as in a person in general.

 

[Skye1300]

Except that race has been around for centuries before Darwin was born. And it was never just about skin colour either. Nationalities were considered akin to races too many centuries ago.

So, in short, you can't answer my OP.

No, nationality has been around for centuries, not race. Nationality is different from race. Race is genes, nationality is where you were born and where you live. Race is a recent man made construct.

 

[BPPLEE]

This comment does pop up every so often when the theory of evolution is discussed:
"Charles Darwin was racist, which means the theory of evolution is racist!"
Or
"The theory of evolution was used to justify slavery, which means that it's racist!"

(Twice in the same thread too!)

One thing I always note with this sort of tactic, to simply discredit evolution by saying that Darwin was racist or that it was used in racist ways, is that... the people who use it really do just leave it at that and say nothing else.

ETA: Since I forgot to state: Charles Darwin may have been the person who came up with the idea for what became the modern theory of evolution, but that does not mean that his personal views dictate what the theory of evolution says. They were his own personal views and his own personal views alone. Racism has scientifically be shown to be an idiotic view and the theory of evolution has been one of the driving forces in showing that.

So my challenge is: without using the writing of Charles Darwin (which means his own works on The Origin of Species or any other books) or anything from the 19th century when slavery was practiced by the western nations, show me an example of the theory of evolution being racist.

I don't want people using it to justify racism. I want something from the theory of evolution that shows it being inherently racist.

I don't think you can show that the theory itself is racist. But these days if there was ever a hint of racism the person is cancelled, statues are torn down, history is rewritten etc.. So if it's happening with the TOE it has a lot of company.