• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Does evolutionary thought propagate racism?

PhantomLlama

Prism Ranger
Feb 25, 2003
1,813
60
38
Birmingham
Visit site
✟24,758.00
Faith
Atheist
Lets try another approach. The USA has a much higher proportion of creationists and lower number of evolution accepters than the UK. Does anyone have any statistics on relative amounts of racism in these countries. Or statistics for the rest of Europe, which has hardly any creationists in it? Then we can do an analysis of the figures.

Also, do not forget that other factors can be involved in such things as the rise of racist beliefs. It could be that other factors caused the rise of racism after evolution. Evolution just gave them another thing to hang on to to try and defend their beliefs.

And also remember that whether or not it promotes racist thought, or even whether or not it is actually racist itself, is irrelevant to its accuracy as science. If a scientific study showed that caucasians were intrinsically superior to other races, if the science was sound we would have to accept it. (We wouldn't, of course, but that is a different issue)
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
51
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Today at 03:15 PM Arikay said this in Post #42

Yeah, lets try this.

Evolution is not racist.

Creationism is not racist.

People are racist.

People believe in both evolution and creationism.

Does that make sense?

Makes perfect sense to me. A bigot is a bigot, and they will rationalize their bigotry with whatever's handy, be it pseudoscience or pseudoreligion.
 
Upvote 0

seebs

God Made Me A Skeptic
Apr 9, 2002
31,917
1,530
20
Saint Paul, MN
Visit site
✟70,235.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Today at 02:15 PM Arikay said this in Post #42

Yeah, lets try this.
Evolution is not racist.
Creationism is not racist.
People are racist.
People believe in both evolution and creationism.
Does that make sense?

Indeed. I've seen people try to justify racism from the Bible, and it's just as stupid as trying to justify it from half-baked notions of evolution.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Crusadar said:
lucaspa said this in Post #30: It's a vain hope, because racism was originally justified by the "higher authority" of God. And is still justified by that. 

If you examine your sources carefully, what you will find is that much of these works were written by fallible men who have polluted the Scriptures with evolutionary thinking. Just by reading the Bible alone you will get no indication that Adam was of any particular color, nor was there the existence of any pre- Adamite race.  These ideas can be traced back to evolutionary thinking that are deeply rooted in the incredulity and compromise of Scripture - mainly that of a literal 6 day creation.

The solution to racism can only be founded on the absolute authority of the word of God, for it is written:

“And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; Acts 17:26 KJV.

Apparently the creationists never read that part of Acts.

Sorry, Crusadar, but in examining sources it is clear that creationism ws the justification for racism. See the list of books below. When Darwin came out with Origin in 1859, it dealt a huge blow to racism because now the different races were NOT special creations that could be discriminated against, but all relatives from a common ancestor and thus all equally human.

"The foundation of modern "scientific" racism was Gobineau's (1853-5) Essay on the Inequality of Human Races. Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882) was a one-time diplomat who held that humanity is divided into three races, white, yellow and black. He considered that his reasoning established that the black race had an "animal character, that appears in the shape of the pelvis"; has a crude yet powerful energy; and dull mental faculties but has an "intensity of desire". The yellow race has little physical energy; feeble desires; mediocrity; a respect for order; and "does not dream or theorise". The whites have an energetic intelligence, perseverance, instinct for order, love of liberty, and sense of honour; they can be cruel, but when they are "they are conscious of their cruelty; it is very, doubtful whether such a consciousness exists in the negro".
"Gobineau was, naturally enough for Europeans of his day, a Biblical literalist; and he remained so all his life, seeing in Darwinism a negation of his view that races always had been and always would be as they now are"
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_science_of_racism.htm

Look at this creationist attempt to refute natural selection. It is based on racism:
"Suppose a white man to have been wrecked on an island inhabited by negroes ... Suppose him to possess the physical strength, energy, and ability of a dominant white race ... grant him every advantage which we can conceive a white to possess over the native .. Yet from all these admissions, there does not follow the conclusion that, after a limited or unlimited number of generations, the inhabitants of the island will be white. Our shipwrecked hero would probably become king; he would kill a great many blacks in the struggle for existence; he would have a great many wives and children, while many of his subjects would live and die as bachelors ... In the first generation there will be some dozens of intelligent young mulattoes, much superior in average intelligence to the negroes ...for if a highly favored white cannot blanch a nation of negroes, it will hardly be contended that a comparatively dull mulatto has a good chance of producing a tawny tribe." Jenkin, F. 1867. Darwin and the origin of species. North British Review, June. In SJ Gould, Fleeming Jenkin Revisited in Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991.

Isaac de la Peyere, Preadamitae, 1655, English edition, Men Before Adam, 1656. Peyere was a French theologian and Huguenot. The book claimed that Adam was not the first man and that the Bible is not the history of mankind, but only the history of the Jews. He was censured by the Pope but kept looking for support for his theory. Part of his rationale came from his interpretation of Paul's Epistle to the Romans. His pre-Adamite theory later became the basis for 19th century theories of polygenism and modern racism. You can see the thread yourself in the works below--other races not descended from Adam, just the white race. A discussion of this work can be found in Encycl. Judaica, 1972. So the idea of races did not originate with Darwin, but with a card-carrying Christian. And the concept of racism came over 200 years *before* Origin of the Species was written.

Charles Carrol The Negro a Beast; or, In the Image of God, 1900 American Book and Bible House. "The Negro created a beast, but created with articulate speech, and hands, that he may be of service to his master -- the White man" "All scientific investigation of the subject proves the Negro to be an ape, and that he simply stands at the head of the ape family." (of course, he is wrong about the science, since evolution shows all the races to belong to the same species) Genesis prohibits mating with "beasts" [Negroes]: they were created a different "kind". God destroyed mankind in the worldwide Flood because man had corrupted his kind by amalgamation with Negro beasts. Negroes were taken on the Ark along with other animals. Has a chapter "The Theory of Evolution Exploded; Man was Created a Man, and Did Not Develop from an Ape" Says there are only 2 origin theories, and they are in "absolute conflict": biblical creation and atheistic evolution.

In the Image of God, 1967, Destiny Publishers. "The Bible stands as an impregnable bulwark against Christendom's modern slogan that all men, regardless of color, are blood brothers ... The simple truth regarding the origin of races demonstrates conclusively that the Negroes and the white race do not have a common ancestry." (quite a contrast to evolution, which says they do and are the same species) The book goes on to cite many Bible passages proving the "beasts" are bipedal servants of "man" and distinct from other animals. Presents scientific evidence of physiological differences which demonstrates that Negroes were created to be beasts of burden. Cites A Hislop's The Two Babylons, 1916, to prove that Nimrod--founder of all false religions--was black. The "atheistical theory of evolution" is a "spurious doctrine" which aligned itself with apostasy and led to "disbelief in the scientifically accurate but simply-worded statements of the Bible."

Walter T. Galusha Fossils and the Word of God, 1964, Exposition Press. God divided man into four colors and wants them to stay separate. The Devil, however, "will try to get them to unite and in this way defeat God's purpose." Is standard creationist fare for the rest, including support for creation of Adam and Eve and Noah's Flood (2130 BC according to book).
 
Upvote 0

gladiatrix

Card-carrying EAC member
Sep 10, 2002
1,676
371
Florida
Visit site
✟28,397.00
Faith
Atheist
Crusadar said:
seebs said this in Post #18: Hitler also claimed he was killing Jews because they killed the Messiah. The delusions of madmen are not relevant.

Yes a madman who truly believed the Jewish people were genetically defective. He also believed that it required only 180 days to get the most usage out of them by working them to death and then extract whatever usable part he could from them then kill them off like mere animals. Clearly this relates more to evolutionary thinking than religious reasoning? For according to evolution - man evolved from slime and has no soul, man is but an animal, a higher form of animal - but an animal nonetheless. The religious aspect was only a side issue to further justify the mass annihilation of a genetically inferior race.

What a load of bull!! After reading 4 pages of this creationist smear of Darwin with the "Hitler/evolutionist/racist" tar brush, time to set the record straight..

From Creationists, Hitler and Evolution
EXCERPT
A common charge made by creationists is that evolutionary theory is "evil" and is the source of racism in general, and of dictatorial killers in particular. The most often-heard assertion is that Hitler and his racist genocide were the product of "evolutionary philosophy". Henry Morris, for instance, flatly declares, "However one may react morally against Hitler, he was certainly a consistent evolutionst." (Morris, "Evolution and Modern racism", ICR Impact, October 1973) Morris adds: "The philosophies of Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche--the forerunners of Stalin and Hitler--have been particularly baleful in their effect: both were dedicated evolutionists." (Morris, Troubled Waters of Evolution, 1974 p. 33)

How accurate is this creationist finger-pointing? Not very. The creationists are apparently unaware of the fact that Stalinist Russia rejected Darwinian evolution as "bourgeois" and instead embraced the non-Darwinian "proletarian biology" of Lysenko and Michurin (a disaster from which Russian genetics and biological sciences has still not completely recovered). As for Hitler, even a cursory reading of his book Mein Kampf reveals that the true source of Hitler's inspiration and exhortations came from a source that creationists, understandably, would rather not talk about.

Hitler's goal was the "purification" of the "Aryan race" through the elimination of "subhumans", which included Jews, gypsies, Asians, black Africans, and everyone else who was not a white Aryan. Despite the creationists claims that this was based on Darwinain evolutionary theory, Hitler's own writings give quite a different story. The ICR claims that "Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book." (ICR Impact, "The Ascent of Racism", Paul Humber Feb 1987) Like so many of ICR's claims, this one is simply not true---a quick scan of several online English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation."

Had ICR made even a cursory reading of Mein Kampf, they would have seen a quite different source for Hitler's racist inspiration than the one they would have us believe. White Aryans, Hitler writes, are the special creations of God, the "highest image of the Lord", put here specifically to rule over the "subhuman" races: "Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise." (all quotes from Hitler, Mein Kampf, online version) Actions which aid the "subhumans" at the expense of the Aryan master race, Hitler declared, were an offense against God: " It is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if His most gifted beings by the hundreds and hundreds of thousands are allowed to degenerate in the present proletarian morass, while Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions."

Rather than basing his racism on any evolutionary theory, Hitler based it squarely on his view of white Aryans as the favored people of God. In fact, Hitler solemnly declares that his program of removing Jews and other "subhumans" from the earth is a divine task forced upon him by the Lord Almighty: "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproductionof our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purityof our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that ourpeople may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the Creator of the universe."

Hitler concludes: "Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord," adding "Compared to the absurd catchword about safeguarding law and order, thus laying a peaceable groundwork for mutual swindles, the task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission." For Hitler, removing the subhumans from earth was not a matter of biology or evolution---it was a divine mandate from God Himself, the "work of the Lord", a "truly high mission".

When "Hitler was an atheist" argument is shown to be a fallacy, creationists will invariably try to blame Hitler's cruelty on evolution, their second-favorite whipping boy for the evils of the world after atheists/Satan. FYI, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was NOT coined by Darwin, but by the philosopher Henry Spencer. Furthermore, this phase, reluctantly adopted by Darwin, does NOT mean the survival of the meanest, strongest bad guy on the block at the expense of the weaker. This is the common mischaracterization by religionists and erstwhile "social Darwinists" like the American industrialists such as John D. Rockefeller et al, who first coined the phrase to justify their underhanded, dog-eat-dog corporate warfare and exploitation of their workers. What this phrase really means , IN CONTEXT, from Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used synonymously with natural selection. The phrase is both incomplete and misleading. For one thing, survival is only one component of selection -- and perhaps one of the less important ones in many populations. For example, in polygynous species, a number of males survive to reproductive age, but only a few ever mate. Males may differ little in their ability to survive, but greatly in their ability to attract mates -- the difference in reproductive success stems mainly from the latter consideration. Also, the word fit is often confused with physically fit. Fitness, in an evolutionary sense, is the average reproductive output of a class of genetic variants in a gene pool. Fit does not necessarily mean biggest, fastest or strongest..." [size=2.5]In other words, who produces the most offspring (leaves more copies of their genes behind) is the "fittest".[/size]

What's that got to do with anything? Evolutionary theory and modern biology have dispelled the idea of some races being "more advanced" than others. There is no such concept in science; it doesn't make sense, and we know better. People are still often racist for religious reasons.

If only that were true. Even the late Dr. Stephen Gould, a paleontologist, atheist, and die hard evolutionist admits that there may have been racism before Darwin's time, but it increased in order of magnitudes after evolution was accepted.
And your source for this tidbit from Gould is?? After finding out what a load of cobblers "Hitler was an evolutionist" was, I want to see where you got this.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,448
13,169
78
✟437,359.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
"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."

This is from a book written by ur-Creationist Henry Morris
(The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pages 147-148)

Science (and thus evolutionists) had learned long before this that biological races do not exist in humans. The above is neither scientific, nor scriptural, but merely the prejudices of a creationist.

Pray for Morris.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Jet Black said:
this seems a bit flawed though, if He didn't, then why would different races be able to interbreed?

Yes, creationists are internally inconsistent in this. But that is true of all racists, creationists or those misusing evolution. Those misusing evolution claim that races are different species, ignoring, of course, that human populations interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Thus showing that they are the same species by the exact biological species concept.

Racism is a strong meme that corrupts any other meme it comes in contact with. Racism will take Christianity, creationism, or evolution and twist them to justify racism. There is a book entitled The Evolution of Racism by Shipley (I think) that details just how racists suborned evolution.
 
Upvote 0
I think it would be good to note that Darwin is the original mind behind the whole of the evolutino theory. He wrote a book people call today "The Origin of Species", but you won't hear very many evolutionists recite the whole title, which is "The Origin of Species and Favored " (emphasis added). Thats not the whole of the title, but that is more of it. It would also be good to note that Darwin himself was a hardcore racist and sexist.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,448
13,169
78
✟437,359.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Darwin, like most people of European descent at the time, was a racist. However, Darwin was of the opinion that all human had the right to freedom and the fruits of their own labor. He was considered a radical for that, by the creationists of the time.

In fact Darwin's ideas on race were almost precisely those of Abraham Lincoln, who also thought that blacks were inferior, but deserved freedom and dignity.

As science has progressed, evolutionists have learned that there are no biological races in humans.

On the other hand, creationists have not learned as much. Henry Morris, one of the the founders of modern creationist doctrine, tells us that blacks spiritually and intellectually inferior to other people.

I wonder if you can find a modern evolutionist who would say so...
 
Upvote 0

fragmentsofdreams

Critical loyalist
Apr 18, 2002
10,358
431
21
CA
Visit site
✟36,328.00
Faith
Catholic
hustonnothouston said:
I think it would be good to note that Darwin is the original mind behind the whole of the evolutino theory. He wrote a book people call today "The Origin of Species", but you won't hear very many evolutionists recite the whole title, which is "The Origin of Species and Favored " (emphasis added). Thats not the whole of the title, but that is more of it. It would also be good to note that Darwin himself was a hardcore racist and sexist.


History is full of brilliant bigots. We judge their contributions to science on the scientific merits, not their other beliefs.
 
Upvote 0
Given that "Origin" has only one, oblique reference to human evolution, I've always suspected that creationists make a mountain out of a molehill when they fasten on his use of the word "races" in the title. It has always seemed obvious to me that "race" in Darwin's usage was interchangeable with "variety".
 
Upvote 0

SLP

Senior Member
May 29, 2002
2,369
660
✟21,532.00
Faith
Atheist
Crusader isn't as bright as he makes himself out to be. I ran into his arrogance at DarwinTalk. He made a lot of scientific sounding claims, but it was easy to find flaws in his basic understanding of issues. When I pointed these out, he said I was 'rude' and decided to ignore me.

But then later he accused me of plagiarizing myself; didn't seem to understand that posting an abstract from a paper is not plagiarism; then actually posted my name on several occasions, apparently in a feeble attempt to intimidate me.

After I mentioned that it is easy to find out who people are, he sort of stopped posting there.

Typical arrogant pseudo-know it all blowhard with just enough knowledge to make big mistakes.
 
Upvote 0

PhantomLlama

Prism Ranger
Feb 25, 2003
1,813
60
38
Birmingham
Visit site
✟24,758.00
Faith
Atheist
SLP said:
Crusader isn't as bright as he makes himself out to be. I ran into his arrogance at DarwinTalk. He made a lot of scientific sounding claims, but it was easy to find flaws in his basic understanding of issues. When I pointed these out, he said I was 'rude' and decided to ignore me.
Did he break out the pseudo-biblical language? When I beat up one of his posts he started saying things like 'from where dost thou get this nonsense young man?'

Priceless.
 
Upvote 0