Interview with historian Richard Weikart: Is evolution racist?

Again we conflate the ideas of genetics with the word evolution. We all know the Evolution debate has zero to do with genetics. But here we are acting as if it does. Darwin’s ideas are all about genetics and nothing else. I know what he claimed and what others in lock step also claim. But yet we take one aspect of a theory (genetics) and then use the magic word, “evolution” as if they are identical. They are completely different ideas and use completely different mechanisms. The people at UD have a definition problem and are playing the fake game of others.jerry

January 31, 2022

January

01

Jan

31

31

2022

04:22 AM

4

04

22

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Since Darwin is the most prominent used to support evolution with his books being among the major schools of thought that brought about eugenics, evolution is as racist as Darwin was. His first book was used by the Soviets of strong ruling over the weak. Might makes right in nature and the Soviets believed the same should hold true for man. Darwin's second book was about human races being distinct with some being superior to others. The others were the savage races that Darwin believed should have been wiped out by the civilized races. He had no problem with extinction of races, so long as the extinctions brought about a stronger human race. The eugenicists that brought racists laws, such as segregation, were based on what Darwin started. The culmination of what Darwin called for in his second book was attempted by Hitler and the Nazis. In many cases, art and artist do not coexist in the work of the artist. There are vile people who created beautiful things from art, music, literature, etc. To judge the art by the artist should rarely be done, since art and artist tend to be very distinct from one another. In the case of Darwin, his art and who he was were intertwined together. Since the human race was very much a part of his beliefs and writings, Darwin cannot be judged on work alone, since who he was came through in what he wrote. Most artists separate themselves from their work, which Darwin was never able to do. His own belief of superiority came through into his work, both racial and societal standing as a man.BobRyan

January 31, 2022

January

01

Jan

31

31

2022

02:58 AM

2

02

58

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Seversky, the question was not whether or not some people who adhere to Darwin's theory might be racist. The question is whether or not Darwin's theory itself is inherently, and/or systemically, racist. And the answer to that question is a resounding "Yes, it is!"

Noah Carl: I’m a sociologist who got canceled – and I fear CHARLES DARWIN might not survive this purge of science and history - 13 Jun, 2020 Excerpt: Second, differences between the races. Referring to some natives he encountered in South America during the voyage of the Beagle, Darwin observes, “one can hardly make oneself believe that they are fellow creatures.” He dedicates a whole chapter of The Descent of Man, to his study of “the races of man.” In that chapter he states, “There is, however, no doubt that the various races, when carefully compared and measured, differ much from each other… Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.” And in an earlier chapter of the book, he contrasts the “civilised races of man” with “the savage races,” noting that the former will “almost certainly exterminate, and replace” the latter. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/491673-sociologist-got-canceled-darwin-purge/

Shoot, to see just how deeply imbedded systemic racism is to Darwin's theory you have to go no further than a natural history museum. Systemic racism is literally built right into the imaginary ‘artistic reconstructions’ of the "march of man" fossils that Darwinists offer to the general public in museums as supposed proof for human evolution.

Human Evolution as a “Path to Whiteness” – November 24, 2021 Excerpt: Do Your Own Google Search I had never thought of this before. In contemporary museum displays and other evolutionary depictions, just as in Darwin’s Descent of Man and in the notorious Civic Biology textbook that was at issue in the 1925 Scopes Trial, human origins are portrayed as an upward progress from dark to white. Neanderthals, however otherwise “primitive” (which is questionable in itself), are shown as light-skinned. And maybe they were, but modern man — Homo sapiens — is almost invariably white and European, not African or Asian. Check out some examples from around the Internet, here, here, here, here, and here. (links on site) Do a Google image search for the phrase “human evolution” and you’ll see many others. Just a coincidence? Or is Darwin’s racist legacy still with us today? You tell me. For a deeper exploration of that legacy, see John West’s documentary Human Zoos. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/human-evolution-as-a-path-to-whiteness/

Sobering to say the least! Verse:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Of supplemental note:

Jan. 2022 - The Fossil Record refutes human evolution https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/at-fox-news-adam-and-eve-are-compatible-with-evolution/#comment-744141

bornagain77

January 30, 2022

January

01

Jan

30

30

2022

05:33 PM

5

05

33

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Interview With Historian Richard Weikart: Is Evolution Racist?

Science is a human enterprise so, because racism is a human failing, there will be some in that community who could be described as racist. Does that make science as a whole racist? The study of history is also a human enterprise and it's likely that there are historians who have racist inclinations. Does that make Weikart's field as whole racist?Seversky

January 30, 2022

January

01

Jan

30

30

2022

04:01 PM

4

04

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The western "democracies" were pushing Darwin even harder, so Hitler wasn't special. We're still doing Nietzsche and Rand at full speed. Ubermensch wins and flies off to Mars, leaving all the Losers and Deplorables dead and rotting. Both design and epigenetics were more comfortable in Soviet science. Lysenko is well known, but design may be unfamiliar. Here's a passage from a 1964 Soviet text on neurology: "Apparently, something similar to the historical succession has occurred in the human nervous system. The individual nerve elements, as well as the nerve circuits made up of them, are histologically and morphologically diversified and complex, and this cannot be considered accidental. Like all the other parts of a living organism, the nerve elements and nerve circuits have been and are performing adaptive and protective functions, that is they adapt the organism to the influence of the surrounding medium as well as to the influence of the organism on the surrounding medium. They have undergone changes and improvements for many thousands of years. Nature took care to equip all living matter in the world with highly delicate nerve structures. The electromagnetic transmission of mental information over a distance is one of the vital functions of the nervous system." This would qualify as non-theistic design thinking, with Nature as designer instead of God.polistra

January 30, 2022

January

01

Jan

30

30

2022

07:26 AM

7

07

26

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link