Evolution and racism. Is there a link?

[mathinspiration]

Is Evolution racist in principle?

 

[Ματθαίος]

Not at all.

 

[jhwatts]

Yes. An example is the full title of Darwin's book.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

That is why you only see part of it when it shows up in conversation. No on would dare state the full title.

 

[Favourofone]

Favoured Races

I don’t think that means what you are trying to make it sound like, but thumbs up for ignorant populism.

 

[jhwatts]

It seems fairly explanatory. Why is it not the case?

Eugenics, planned parent hood etc. began to show up after it was published.

Its a pure communist philosophy to disconnect man from any personnel connection with the universe and God.

Do you realize that the reason we have separate age groups in schools now is because of applying the the theory of evolution to social science? In short, ages represent different stages in our evolutionary past. The embryo represents the point humans supposedly was in its most primitive state, in its cellar form in earths past and it goes up from there.

The same goes for age separation in Sunday schools. We have taken one of the devils most powerful tools and adopted it in our church philosophy on how we educate our youth.

Why do you think at one time there was only one room school house and churches?

Now we separate according to ages.

 

[Favourofone]

It seems fairly explanatory. Why not?

Seeing a term NASCAR race has about as much to do with racism as Darwin’s books full title.

 

[Favourofone]

Just for kicks here is definition of evolution.

Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2]

Can you point the racist bits out ? Should be fascinating.

 

[Favourofone]

Eugenics, planned parent hood etc. began to show up after it was published.

Its a pure communist philosophy to disconnect man from any personnel connection with the universe and God.

Smell of herrings is strong in this one........just answer post 7 will you ?

 

[jhwatts]

Smell of herrings is strong in this one........just answer post 7 will you ?

I smell something but I don't think its herring. Its more like crow.

Your question is immaterial. I can easily contort that definition to relate to a racial motivation.

You need to show me how under no circumstances it cannot be contorted to mean anything racial.

My question for you is. Have you heard of Francis Galton the father of modern eugenics?

Many racial crimes have been motive in the interest in eugenics. A word like Hitler comes to mind first and foremost.

Francis Galton - Wikipedia

Spend a few minutes reading. I'm sure you will find it interesting. What is really interesting is his relation ship with Darwin (Of course they are related.).

His own words. "The best form of civilization in respect to the improvement of the race, would be one in which society was not costly; where incomes were chiefly derived from professional sources, and not much through inheritance; where every lad had a chance of showing his abilities, and, if highly gifted, was enabled to achieve a first-class education and entrance into professional life, by the liberal help of the exhibitions and scholarships which he had gained in his early youth; where marriage was held in as high honour as in ancient Jewish times; where the pride of race was encouraged (of course I do not refer to the nonsensical sentiment of the present day, that goes under that name); where the weak could find a welcome and a refuge in celibate monasteries or sisterhoods, and lastly, where the better sort of emigrants and refugees from other lands were invited and welcomed, and their descendants naturalised. (p. 362)[5]"

 

[Favourofone]

Your question is immaterial. I can easily contort that definition to relate to a racial motivation.

Sure, everything can be contorted. Creationism 101. But since that is the real definition of evolution and you didn’t find anything racist on it but started your feeble contortions we can agree that evolution in itself has nothing to do with racism as we understand it ?

Eugenics is a totally separate matter although clearly close to your heart. Feel free to start new thread about it. Should fit in fine with US healthcare discussions.

 

[The Barbarian]

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

"Races" are what we would call "species" today.

However Darwin was as much a racist as those in England that rejected evolution. Most Europeans at the time believed that they were the acme of humanity, and all others were inferior. Darwin differed from them mainly in being anti-slavery, and asserting that all humans were entitled to freedom and dignity.

Since evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races today, you'd have a hard time finding an evolutionist who is also a racist. On the other hand, into the 1990s, the leader of the Institute for Creation Research was asserting that black were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people.

This is one of the major differences between science and creationism. Not that all creationists are racists. Many, even most of them are not. But it's troubling that their leaders have been racists.

 

[The Barbarian]

Many racial crimes have been motive in the interest in eugenics. A word like Hitler comes to mind first and foremost.

Eugenics did not survive modern evolutionary theory. Darwin, as you might know, referred to the idea as an "overwhelming evil", and Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan later showed that eugenic ideas were not scientifically supportable.

On the other hand, one of the founders of the Institute for Creation Research was an enthusiastic eugenicist.

Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.


Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves”, producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population”[8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:


It is an excellent plan to keep defective people in institutions for here they are not permitted to marry and bear children.[8, p. 131]
Dr. West, meet Dr. Tinkle, Creationist eugenicist

While creationists like Tinkle agreed with Hitler on the notion of "defective" people and on the idea that eugenics could improve the gene pool, most of them rejected Hitler's "solution." Nevertheless, creationism, being consistent with eugenic ideas had more eugenicists than Darwinism, which was not consistent with eugenics.

Reginald Punnett, for example, showed that it would take many generations of closely controlled breeding to remove harmful genes from the human gene pool.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is Evolution racist in principle?

No. Because the concept of "race" is pseudoscience. There were some people in the late 19th century and early 20th century who tried to apply some of Darwin's ides in ways they were never meant; what we usually call Social Darwinism is an example of this. But evolution has nothing at all to do with "race" because "race" isn't a biological reality. Biologically speaking, there is no such thing as "race".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Piet Strydom]

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin/
Darwin didn’t hide his view that his evolutionary thinking applied to human races as well as to animal species. The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory:

The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.

 

[The Barbarian]

h
Darwin didn’t hide his view that his evolutionary thinking applied to human races as well as to animal species.

As pretty much every European of the time,Darwin thought that Europeans were better than other humans. He differed from most creationists in opposing slavery and believing that all men deserved freedom and dignity. He had a terrible argument with the creationist captain of the Beagle, who endorsed slavery.

And I emphasize that not all creationists were pro-slavery. Samuel Wilberforce, who debated Huxley on evolution, agreed with him and Darwin that all humans should be free and respected.

The full title of his seminal 1859 book was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

He said nothing about humans in that book. "Races" was the term they used for "species" in those days. But it does cause some confusion.

He followed up more explicitly in The Descent of Man, where he spelled out his racial theory:

The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.

If you read the book, you already know, that this he objected to it, and was merely accurately commenting on what was going on at the time. As liberal ideas became more common in the Western world, that sort of thing became less common, but numerous groups of humans were decimated or exterminated during the colonial era.

You'd have a hard time finding a racist evolutionist today, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. On the other hand, in the 90s, the leader of the Institute for Creation Research was writing about the supposed spiritual and intellectual inferiority of blacks.

This is one of the major differences between science and creationism. Again, this is not to say that all creationists are racists; many are clearly not racists. But it's disturbing that the leader of the largest creationist organization could write a book about such foul things, and not be challenged by his fellow creationists.

 

[Piet Strydom]

You'd have a hard time finding a racist evolutionist today, because evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. On the other hand, in the 90s, the leader of the Institute for Creation Research was writing about the supposed spiritual and intellectual inferiority of blacks.

This is one of the major differences between science and creationism. Again, this is not to say that all creationists are racists; many are clearly not racists. But it's disturbing that the leader of the largest creationist organization could write a book about such foul things, and not be challenged by his fellow creationists.

I find your spin in racism and Evolution very shortsighted.
lets look at the fruits of Evolution that changed into Natzism.
Hitler hated all non Arians, he even sent his scientists to every country on Earth to measure their heads, jaws, noses, eyecolor, hair, etc.
he believed that Black People was still evolving and needed at least another million years to get to the level of Arians.
Next, lets look at communism. Few of many Evolutionists that you dont want to accept as Evolutionists,
Joseph Stalin,Benito Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Marshall Joseph Tito, Slobodan Milosevic, Idi Amin, Ho Chi Minh, Juan Peron, Ferdinand Marcos, Pol Pot, Fransisco Franco, (and dont even go into China)

Some of the world's greatest mass murderers and oppressors ever known.
Why?
Because they did not believe in the fact that Humans was made in the image of God, by God!
To them they were the strongest survivors, and any opposition must be eliminated for the goodwill of the pack mentality of their ideologies.
I think it is arrogant to come on this forum telling Christians how wonderfully intellectual Darwin was, forgetting that his theories has no evidence, is a huge concoction, embraced by mad men and this includes all atheists, resulting in death and destruction.
Evolution is a religion of men that do not want morality as the source of the man, but replaces the divine creation with barbaric animalist origins.
Look at the fruits of Darwinist' work, and see the poisonous roots.

The last time something like this occurred in Christianity, was when people did not have the Bible and believed what the Church taught them.
This resulted in people doing harm to other thinking they do God a service.
Once the Bible was translated in the common language, they left the horrible reality that they were ruled by people that also lived by the Rule of Evolution, even though Darwin still did not exist for a few hundred years.
The Rule was, Eat and dont get Eaten!
The same goes for Islam and the Quran.
No thought is given that others are the creation of God in His image.
The dogma still lives.
Be Muslim and Live.
This is the core of Evolution.
and once Atheism embraced Evolution as their religion, they wanted to kill anything that proved their stupidity.
and please dont use some Christian Creationist as evidence that Christians can believe in Evolution too.
You are taking one example and generalize your statement.
Greetings in the name of my Creator.

 

[The Barbarian]

I find your spin in racism and Evolution very shortsighted.

I'm just showing you the facts. Hitler and eugenics were refuted by evolutionary theory before he ever started.

Hitler hated all non Arians, he even sent his scientists to every country on Earth to measure their heads, jaws, noses, eyecolor, hair, etc.

As you learned, evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races. It was all foolishness, refuted by people like Punnett and Morgan.

he believed that Black People was still evolving and needed at least another million years to get to the level of Arians.

His fellow racist, Henry Morris, director of the Institute for Creation Research wrote that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other people. Pretty much like Hitler, um?

Next, lets look at communism. Few of many Evolutionists that you dont want to accept as Evolutionists,
Joseph Stalin

Stalin outlawed Darwinism in the Soviet Union. He imprisoned or killed Darwinian biologists, in favor of Lysenko's idiot anti-Darwinian ideas.

When the Soviet Union Chose the Wrong Side on Genetics and Evolution
Lysenko came to dominate Soviet biology with a 1948 speech—prepared in part by Stalin himself—in which Lysenko denounced Mendel and declared proponents of such science to be enemies of the people. Scientists who disagreed with Lysenko’s theories were purged—some were sent to the gulags while others simply disappeared.

The results were inevitable: Soviet biology slowed nearly to a halt until a series of crop failures and resulting food shortages forced the removal of Lysenko in 1965, though his star had already begun to fall after Stalin’s death in 1953. And in the rest of the world, science advanced, as it is wont to do when researchers are given the freedom to explore new and old ideas, leaving the Soviet biologists in the dust.
When the Soviet Union Chose the Wrong Side on Genetics and Evolution | Science | Smithsonian

And that led to disastrous crop failures and damage to Russian biology that still exists. Darwinism, was ruled by the communists to be anti-Marxist. And it is.

You do realize that some of the people on your list imprisoned and killed communists, don't you? Franco, for example, killed hundreds of thousands of them.

Some of the world's greatest mass murderers and oppressors ever known.

As you now realize the greatest killer among them outlawed Darwinism, and killed those who accepted Darwin's ideas.

Why?

Because Darwinism is incompatible with Marxism.

I think it is arrogant to come on this forum telling Christians how wonderfully intellectual Darwin was

If he had never discovered the way evolution works, he would still be considered a major scientist. His work on cirripodia, showing them to be arthropods, and his discovery of the cause of Pacific atolls made his place in science secure.

forgetting that his theories has no evidence,

Some of the evidence for evolution:
Observed speciation
Genetic data showing common descent (and we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent)
Fossil transitional forms (even honest YE creationists like Kurt Wise admit this is "strong evidence" for evolution)
Predictions of evolutionary theory that were later verified

Would you like to learn more about some of this?

Evolution is a religion of men

It's just a theory. Perhaps you don't know what a "theory" is.

that do not want morality as the source of the man, but replaces the divine creation with barbaric animalist origins.

If that were true, biologists and their families would be less well-behaved than most people. And the opposite is true.

The last time something like this occurred in Christianity, was when people did not have the Bible and believed what the Church taught them.

The Bible was always there. From the beginning, Christians cited the Bible. By the 6th century, the canon of books was fairly well established, but wasn't formally set until the Council of Trent.

Once the Bible was translated in the common language, they left the horrible reality that they were ruled by people that also lived by the Rule of Evolution

No one even thought of evolution at that time. You've been badly misled there.

The Rule was, Eat and dont get Eaten!

That's not what evolutionary theory says. No wonder you think you hate it. I'd hate it too, if I thought it was like that.

The same goes for Islam and the Quran.

The Quran has some bloody portions. So does the Bible. They both also praise charity and mercy.

No thought is given that others are the creation of God in His image.

You're mistaken there, too. That was always in the Bible and taught as truth.

and please dont use some Christian Creationist as evidence that Christians can believe in Evolution too.

Darwin, in The Origin of Species, attributed the origin of life to God. The last sentence of his book:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

So you're demonstrably wrong.