Creationist Statements

So you are bringing out the old 'races' in the title of Origin of species card that has been explained millions of times?


And I thought Wikipedia wasn't a reliable source.

Metherion

metherion said:

And I thought Wikipedia wasn't a reliable source.

Click to expand...

You thought right.

I have to speak to atheists in language they will understand, namely Wikipedia.

Eugenics? What has that have to do with darwin? And what is racist about it?
And I'm not going to read the whole book, please direct me to the exact page. And a quote from the page would be highly appreciated.

Agonaces of Susa said:

You thought right.

I have to speak to atheists in language they will understand, namely Wikipedia.

Click to expand...

I think you know perfectly well that what you imply there is not true. I think you also know perfectly well that it's a pretty rude insult, and I suspect that's precisely why you wrote it.

That's not very nice. Please tell me I was wrong.

Naraoia said:

I think you know perfectly well that what you imply there is not true.

Click to expand...

In my experience it is true.

I think you also know perfectly well that it's a pretty rude insult, and I suspect that's precisely why you wrote it.

Click to expand...

I wrote it as a statement of fact.

In my experience Wikipedia is the only thing they accept unquestioningly as infallible Holy Scripture.

That's not very nice. Please tell me I was wrong.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to insult you. If it doesn't apply to you then I didn't mean to imply that it does. Sorry.

Agonaces im still waiting for examples of darwins supposed racism.

Agonaces of Susa said:

In my experience it is true.

Click to expand...

We must have been experiencing different atheists, then.

I wrote it as a statement of fact.

Click to expand...

It sounded a lot like snark.

In my experience Wikipedia is the only thing they accept unquestioningly as infallible Holy Scripture.

Click to expand...

Can you point to any examples of this? I think Wikipedia is often used because it's an easily accessible source of information on a wide range of topics.

But unquestioning acceptance... I wonder who gave you that impression.

I didn't mean to insult you. If it doesn't apply to you then I didn't mean to imply that it does. Sorry.

Click to expand...

No problem. Just make sure you don't sound like you're making snarky generalisations in the future. Unless, of course, you are making snarky generalisations.

Agonaces of Susa said:

"National Socialism is nothing but applied biology." -- Rudolph Hess, Deputy Führer, 1934

"National Socialism is applied biology." -- Hans Schemm, Nazi Education Minister and president of the Nazi Teacher's Association, 1935

Click to expand...

Sure, eugenics is basically selective breeding done on humans. Selective breeding predates Darwin by thousands of years though.

Agonaces of Susa said:

"Darwin would be astounded at the progress we're going to make in one year as we move the human race forward." -- Reinhard Heydrich, Chief of Police, January 20th 1942

Click to expand...

A source would be nice.

While we're waiting for the source, here are some scary quotes from "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" showing Darwin's obsession with race:

Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.

Click to expand...

Uhhh, cabbage races. Scary stuff. He's obviously advocating genocide of inferior non-aryan cabbage.

Great as the differences are between the breeds of pigeons, I am fully convinced that the common opinion of naturalists is correct, namely, that all have descended from the rock-pigeon (Columba livia), including under this term several geographical races or sub-species, which differ from each other in the most trifling respects.

Click to expand...

Pigeon races now! Does his thirst for blood never end?! Notice the word "sub-species", obviously suggesting that they are inferior and need to be exterminated.

To be a little serious, I just searched through the book for "race", and human races are only mentioned 2 times, none of them even vaguely resembling anything racist. Feel free to try it yourself: Literature.org - The Online Literature Library

Peter

Abraham Lincoln, Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.) Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

I think we'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that Darwin was any more racist than any other white man of the era.