Is evolution racist?

[john crawford]

But "the Islam theology held by Bin Laden" is as much a twisted theology as the Christian theology held by the KKK. Those who are not familiar with what is actually said won't be able to tell the real thing from the twisted version.

I don't see how introducing Islamic or Christian theology into the discussion has anything to do with the topic of the thread unless you are a Christian Darwinist and think that science is religious or has something scientific and meaningful to say about religion.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I don't see how introducing Islamic or Christian theology into the discussion has anything to do with the topic of the thread unless you are a Christian Darwinist and think that science is religious or has something scientific and meaningful to say about religion.

Well, that was certainly not my intention, I was just discussing a similarity between the two with ThaiDuykhang. One thing that science and religion do have in common is that either can be twisted to serve a certain ignoble end. Perversions of Islam and Christianity are analogies, but certainly not meant to derail the thread...

 

[The Lady Kate]

Let's keep our posts to what the OP is about then and not what evolution "has been used and misused to justify."

My point exactly.

This thread is about the inherent racism in Darwinist theories of human evolution. We can discuss both the racial and religious aspects inherent in Darwinist philosophy if you like.

This thread is asking whether or not there is any inherent racism in Darwin's theories. I wasn't aware that there were any religious aspects to what he wrote.

 

[john crawford]

One thing that science and religion do have in common is that either can be twisted to serve a certain ignoble end.

Sciences like physics, chemistry, biology and geology, because of their naturally limited areas of concern, fortunately, cannot be the determinant of what is noble, ignoble or immoral.

Perversions of Islam and Christianity are analogies, but certainly not meant to derail the thread...

Certainly do appreciate your attempts not to derail the topic, since atheistic Darwinists claim that their 'science' has nothing to do with Islamic or Christian religion even if some Christian Darwinists think that theistic evolution is 'scientific.'

 

[john crawford]

My point exactly.

So far, so good. Nice to reach a point of aggreement with you, Lady Kate.

This thread is asking whether or not there is any inherent racism in Darwin's theories. I wasn't aware that there were any religious aspects to what he wrote.

You introduced those religious aspects yourself, Lady Kate. The topic of the thread is racism in evolution.

Care to discuss the inherent racism in modern Darwinist theories of human evolution in Africa? That's the topic of the thread.

We don't mind discussing religious racism with you as long as you are willing to admit that Darwinist theories of human evolution in Africa are either a covert form of scientific racism or a covert form of religious racism.

Take your choice.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Sciences like physics, chemistry, biology and geology, because of their naturally limited areas of concern, fortunately, cannot be the determinant of what is noble, ignoble or immoral.

Of course...No scientific area can do this, because science is merely a descriptive tool... it describes not "moral" and "immoral, " but "true" and "false."
And not even that....given our fallibility, the best we can hope for is "most likely true," and "most likely false."

Certainly do appreciate your attempts not to derail the topic, since atheistic Darwinists claim that their 'science' has nothing to do with Islamic or Christian religion even if some Christian Darwinists think that theistic evolution is 'scientific.'

Well, of course theistic evolution is not completely scientific, since science doesn't involve supernatural elements... which God certainly is.

But to the extent where TEs claim that God worked within natural laws is at least measurable through scientific means... In the case of TE, if God did create with evolution, then science could clearly observe, record, measure, and make predictions based on evolution, but could never prove that God did it (of course, neither could science disprove it). The idea that God is the driving force is what TEs accept on faith... and I've never heard a TE claim that that was scientific.

But again, this is off-topic... let's get back on track.

 

[The Lady Kate]

So far, so good. Nice to reach a point of aggreement with you, Lady Kate.

You introduced those religious aspects yourself, Lady Kate. The topic of the thread is racism in evolution.

I was merely making an analogy... as we both agree, we cannot call evolution "racist" just because it has been used to justify racist actions and ideologies... because what hasn't been used to justify atrocity throughout history?

Care to discuss the inherent racism in modern Darwinist theories of human evolution in Africa? That's the topic of the thread.

That is why I'm here... so let's get down to it. I suppose what I'm curious about is where exactly the inherent racism is...

We don't mind discussing religious racism with you as long as you are willing to admit that Darwinist theories of human evolution in Africa are either a covert form of scientific racism or a covert form of religious racism.

I was under the impression that we hadn't established that as a given just yet.

 

[john crawford]

I was merely making an analogy... as we both agree, we cannot call evolution "racist" just because it has been used to justify racist actions and ideologies... because what hasn't been used to justify atrocity throughout history?

I understand what you are saying and agree.

That is why I'm here... so let's get down to it. I suppose what I'm curious about is where exactly the inherent racism is...

Putting Darwin's own racist writings in "Descent of Man" aside, modern Darwinism is inherently racist (racially bigoted or prejudiced) in depicting our human ancestors as a series of different 'species' which progressively 'evolved' from non-human apes in Africa. Each theoretical step of progressive human 'speciation,' from a non-human ape status to fully modern human beings like ourselves involves racial evolution even though most Darwinists avoid or side-step that issue preferring to speak only of the human fossils as 'species' without explaining that in order to speciate in the first place, various racial differences within a 'species' must of necessity first develop, as is obvious within the current state of the human race.

If we chart the progressive speciation of humans from non-human apes in Africa all the way up to fully modern humans nowadays on a scale of 1 - 10, with the first so-called 'species' of humans to 'evolve' in Africa, being species number 1 and ourselves being 10, we can see at a glance that species 1 is considered to be much closer to a non-human apelike state and status than we fully equal human beings are today. In other words the original 'human species' and racial groups which developed within it, in Africa, must of transitional necessity be considered much more ape-like than human.

Before species 1 evolves and emerges as species 2, various racial differences and traits will develop in isolated groups leading to the emergence of various racial groups within the general population, which in accordance with Darwinst theories of genetic mutation, adaptation and natural selection, will result in the inevitable survival of one racial group as a new 'species' and the eventual extinction of the rest of the racial groups within the original species.

Species 2 is a little more human than 1 but still can't speak, stand or walk fully upright as we do and may be regarded as more of a non-human ape-man than a human being.

Species 5 is half non-human ape and half human since it still can't speak even though it may stand and walk upright.

This Darwinist process is theoretically repeated in Africa until one racial group within human 'species' 9 is "naturally selected" by modern Darwinists to evolve into fully human 'species' number 10, African Homo sapiens. Before these African Homo sapiens have much time to raciate into a new 'species' in Africa, they "migrate" into Eurasia and replace all former races and 'species' there after racially evolving into the various racial groups within Homo sapiens we see around the world today.

Consequently, Darwinist theory proposes that all racial groups in the world today are decended from a race of African people who are theorized to have originally speciated from non-human African apes in an evolutionist step-by-step progression.

Is Darwinism not a well-detailed racial theory concerning the step-by-step origins of the entire human race?

 

[faithful99]

I would consider that the Australian Aborigine has suffered most from evolutionary ideas. The Aborigines were once considered to be the missing-link between apes. It’s only as recent as 1967 that the Aborigine was regarded as human.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I would consider that the Australian Aborigine has suffered most from evolutionary ideas. The Aborigines were once considered to be the missing-link between apes. It’s only as recent as 1967 that the Aborigine was regarded as human.

Ota Benga: The Pygmy put on display in a zoo

 

[john crawford]

Ota Benga: The Pygmy put on display in a zoo

Aside from the fact that evolutionist theory can be shown to have had racist implications and applications in the past, can you think of how the current theories, models, diagrams and scenarios of human evolution in and out of Africa might be considered inherently racist in and of themsleves?

In other words, if current theories assume or imply that the first 'species' of humans to originate from African apes were African men and women, could not that be regarded as a racially bigoted theory?

If current Darwinist theorists also assume, claim or imply that all modern racial groups today are descended from an African race or species of humans, would that not also be a form of racial prejudice or bigotry?

Keep in mind that that theories are not facts until proven to the general public.

 

[shernren]

Sigh. Has Feynman's path integrals over multiple histories been proven to the general public? Mostly no. Are they useful formulations? Very.

The theory of evolution makes historical statements. Evolutionists go on to state their supposed racial significance - independently of anything evolution itself might say. It is instructive to note that although bacteria are supposedly "primitive" (having evolved the earliest) they compose a large proportion of the earth's biomass. The shark and crocodile designs have not changed much since their first evolution.

If Africans really evolved before other humans, it would just be a historical fact. To say that it has racial connotations would be like saying that Europeans are stupid because the Chinese discovered gunpowder first, or that Christians are violent because they instigated the Crusades. Such an assertion stems from an improper understanding of evolution.

 

[john crawford]

The theory of evolution makes historical statements.

That reduces the scientific claims of evolutionists to the level of historical legends and myths, since "history" is only written by the survivors of historical episodes. Darwinist evolution isn't 'history.' It is only a theory of how living organisms originated based on observations of their COMMON DESIGN.

Evolutionists go on to state their supposed racial significance - independently of anything evolution itself might say.

"Evolution" doesn't "say" anything in and of itself other than what evolutionists and creationists say it does.

It is instructive to note that although bacteria are supposedly "primitive" (having evolved the earliest) they compose a large proportion of the earth's biomass.

It is equally instructive to note that bacteria are still bacteria and nothing has ever been observed evolving from bacteria.

The shark and crocodile designs have not changed much since their first evolution.

If their designs were changed, they couldn't be classified as sharks and crocodiles nowadays.

If Africans really evolved before other humans, it would just be a historical fact.

Historical "facts" ought to be verified by some professional historians before the general public may be persuaded to accept and believe in 'pre-historic' claims of historical factuality or reality.

To say that it has racial connotations would be like saying that Europeans are stupid because the Chinese discovered gunpowder first, or that Christians are violent because they instigated the Crusades.

Darwinists measure and qualify the progress of human evolution on the basis of chronologically listing the cultural and technological acheivements of various regional/racial groups represented in the fossil record according to brain size and other indications of human intelligence.

Such an assertion stems from an improper understanding of evolution.

It's not improper to understand that in order for a species to evolve into another species, in accordance with Darwinist theories of gradual genetic mutation and natural selection, racial variations must first appear within a species before a small isolated population within that species becomes so racially different from the rest of the species that it may recognised as a new and different species.

Of course, the racial aspect of evolution is only inherent in evolutionist theory and is not well-understood or appreciated by the general public. Even dedicated Darwinists deny that their theories necessitate racial evolution within a species in order for that species to further evolve into another entirely different species which can't even interbreed with the racial groups of its former species!

 

[Maxster211]

Let's switch places for a second within the races. Let's say that Cocassions were the ones who were Native Americans, or Africans, durring the time of Darwinism. Would you subject, then, that, if the places were switched, people with darker skin color would be smarter than those with lighter?
It all comes down to phycology and what is at hand. The Native Americans thought what they did because of what they had to work with. That would be the same with Africans, and the same with Chineese, and is the same with every race there is. The human race, as a whole, works with what it has to get as far as they can.

 

[shernren]

taken to the open forum.

 

[john crawford]

Let's switch places for a second within the races. Let's say that Cocassions were the ones who were Native Americans, or Africans, durring the time of Darwinism. Would you subject, then, that, if the places were switched, people with darker skin color would be smarter than those with lighter?

Evaluating any racial group or 'species' of human beings within the greater human race as being more biologically, culturally and intellectually evolved, or "smarter" is a common feature of Darwinist racial theories about the origins of the human race in Africa. After all, only the Homo sapiens species is catagorized as 'wise man.'

It all comes down to phycology and what is at hand.

Yes, it is all very psychological since Darwinist theories of common descent and common origins are more psychological in nature than scientifically observable or demonstrable, and such things as shared physiological features and traits are more evidential of common design than common ancestry. Darwinists psychologically impute and infer common ancestry from observations of common design in two species and then deny common design because they don't like the psychological associations which the term implies. Creationists should always be able to point out that Darwinist concepts of common ancestry and origins only exist in the mind while shared observations of common structural and physiological design in two species are quite readily and commonly observable.