Asked at American Thinker: Is St. Darwin losing his halo?

_{News
July 2, 2020

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Racism

2}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
Racism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Impossible!: On the other hand:

I would guess that none of the people driving their ancient Volvos or newish Lexuses with Darwin badges of intelligence (as they see it) realize that 12 years after he published his most famous work, Charles Darwin published The Descent of Man, an unapologetic treatise claiming that some races (cough!) are more intelligent than others. But Down Under, where the capital of the vast Northern Territory sports his name, they have noticed that Darwin was a white supremacist. Michael Madigan of the Brisbane Courier-Mail writes in a paywalled article:
“[C]alling Charles Darwin, that towering scientific figure of the last millennium and father of evolutionary biology, a white supremacist doesn’t quite hit the mark.
“Chuck was the white supremacist’s White Supremacist — the man who actually wrote the book on white supremacy… “
Writing for a publication of the National Institutes of Health, Steven Rose says that in addition to being a racist, Darwin was unforgivably sexist.
Thomas Lifson, “It’s time for atheists and progs with Darwin bumper stickers to get rid of their white supremacist dog whistles” at American Thinker

It’s a good thing Darwin’s long dead so we needn’t pay for him to have a 24-hour bodyguard.

But seriously, much as this stupid culture-wrecking is deplorable, the fact is, many of us have tried to talk about Darwin’s racism for many years, only to be rebuffed by sneery Darwinists who claimed – in total defiance of facts – that it ain’t so because Darwin… opposed slavery!

Well, it’s a good thing he did. But a racist could certainly oppose slavery on a number of grounds. In the same way that a person who thinks that women are not equal to men can certainly oppose polygamy. One can oppose a given cultural practice without making any claims at all about equality of persons.

If Darwin’s bronze head rolls… we just wish we could have had a constructive discussion earlier.

See also: Darwin reader: Darwin’s racism

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments

BR, I don't think Darwin wanted to commit genocide, he simply thought it inevitable along with wiping out the great apes. KFkairosfocus_{July 4, 2020
July
07
Jul
4
04
2020
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

JVL, the problem isn't Mr Trump, he . . . warts and all . . . and other usual targets of the daily 24/7 media smear storm are just temporary roadblocks to an obviously anti-civilisation, utterly misanthropic, cultural form marxist agenda. The Rubicon is the sudden push to defund and abolish normal policing (doubtless to be replaced by ideological anti-police, as in CDR Havana style plus NKVD plus gulags plus Red Guard house arrests and public humiliations with a dash of show trials with judicial murder to follow). That push cannot be taken back and it is a decisive sign of what we are up against. Where, of course you conveniently overlooked public libraries trying to desensitise thus groom children through cross dressing story hour sessions and the attempt to do away with sex differentiated bathrooms that was temporarily blunted through mass outrage a few years back. Then, I happen to know of sex ed scandals in this region where kids were being indoctrinated with all sorts of perversities backed by radical groups with significant international backing, so the global perversity push is definitely there, the issue is, what will be there -- or not -- to be a bulwark against sliding into the Rom 1 sewer. Nor, should we forgot the Red Guards rampaging in the streets, nor that such have shadowy backers. Of course, I carry no brief for a certain NY Contractor in chief, but you had better believe I will defend the most progressive (good sense) civilisation in history from those who don't seem to realise or care that the predictable outcome of agendas in play if unchecked, is a slide into the vortex of tyranny. The historic price to climb back out of that is rivers of blood and tears. I also hold that the USA is already in 4th Gen Civil war . . . Red Guards on the rampage are a big clue for those who are blind to subtler signs . . . and that this election cycle and its aftermath will likely seriously ramp up the kinetic element. I think some who are pushing misanthropic agendas, agit prop and lawfare need to think again about what they are doing in an era where 6.5 mm Creedmoor rifles mean the danger zone when you stand in front of a mike to slander or when you pop a head out of an APC or when you step out of a limousine is now easily 1,000+ yards. I strongly suggest that those who are playing with dangerous matches read the poem, When the Saxon begins to hate, as a warning. A slow boil is not a good sign. When a critical mass reaches the point where it feels it has nothing left to lose and so it needs to change the game to lose-lose, horrors now unimaginable would be unleashed. Please, let us step back from the edge of the abyss. I suggest, you take a very careful look at the breakup of Yugoslavia and ask yourself, what is going to stop a slide into if we are lucky, Balkans lite. Collectively, we have played the fool for years and now quite literally there is Hell to pay. KFkairosfocus_{July 4, 2020
July
07
Jul
4
04
2020
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

As President Donald Trump is faced with daily scandals and is slipping in the polls, Evangelical Christians are scrambling to bolster his support. According to former televangelist Jim Bakker, it was essential that Trump was reelected. “Trump must be reelected,” said Bakker. “God sees we are moving in the right way and returning to the Lord. If the liberals take over, they will destroy all our progress. Before you know it, a transgender will be teaching your son anal sex in high school.”
https://thebiznews.org/2020/07/01/bakker-if-trump-isnt-reelected-a-transgender-will-teach-your-son-anal-sex/JVL_{July 4, 2020
July
07
Jul
4
04
2020
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

Descent of Man, Darwin's second book, made his view clear. Savage races should be exterminated by civilized races, which included Africans and Australian aborigines. He admired the way the United States handled their savage races by sending them to small tracts of land and not allowing them to mix with the civilized, which would sully the genetic descendants of those who followed. Eugenics can be traced back to Darwin with a direct line. That is the theory that you can have a pure race by removal of genetic material. We are all mutts, some more than others. The closer to genetic purity one gets, the more genetic problems they have. For anyone who believes Darwin did not support mass extinction of any savage race, do some research into what happened in Australia with the aborigines. Charles Darwin's own words speak volumes to the idea of genocide of savage races.BobRyan_{July 4, 2020
July
07
Jul
4
04
2020
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

I like this following quote:
"If literature that depicts prejudice, or words or scenes that are today rightly abhorred, is to be banned, I don’t know if even the Bible can survive,",,, "If we only honor perfect, saintly people of the past, I guess I’m left with only the cross. And some people would ban that." - Cardinal Dolan - "Even the Bible Is Full of Flawed Characters" https://www.foxnews.com/media/cardinal-dolan-dangerous-removal-monuments-statues-tradition
bornagain77_{July 3, 2020
July
07
Jul
3
03
2020
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

Seversky, according to your beloved theory, not only do black lives not matter, but no lives matter,
Darwinism and “No Lives Matter” -June 25, 2020 Excerpt: As Professor Weikart explains, Darwin’s racism is not incidental to his case for evolution. It’s not as if he was merely a product of his time, with the reprehensible attitudes held by other upper class Brits when he wrote his books. Yes, he was anti-slavery. And yes, he embodied the racism that came before him. He didn’t invent it. But he also used it as “evidence” for his theory. He believed that different races of humans represented biological variations (in intelligence, moral capacity, and more) on which the natural selection process could work, just as it could on finch beaks. His conclusion of a racial hierarchy with Africans at the bottom, his projection of eventual racial “extermination,” were no stray inference. The documentaries Human Zoos and The Biology of the Second Reich show how Darwinian theory continued to motivate racism, eugenic drives, and genocide into the 20th century. Not a Bug but a Feature Weikart continues by noting that later Darwinists (such as Peter Singer) drew logical consequences from evolution, including that since all human beings are the product of random natural forces, they possess no special dignity. Human life is not precious. Or to put it another way, via John Zmirak: NO LIVES MATTER. By contrast, the religious traditions that evolutionary theory pushes aside possess ample reason for respecting humans universally as equals, of identical value and dignity, no matter the color of their skin. Of course, there have been “religious” racists. But that is a contradiction with their professed faith. Those who call for vandalizing churches because of depictions of a “white” Jesus don’t understand this. https://evolutionnews.org/2020/06/darwinism-and-no-lives-matter/
Indeed, in Christianity every life is precious, whereas Seversky, in your atheistic worldview, every life is 'chemical scum';
You Chemical Scum, You – Raymond Tallis Excerpt: Voltaire got things off to a jolly secular start quite a while back, by instructing the eponymous hero of his novel Zadig (1747) to visualise “men as they really are, insects devouring one another on a little atom of mud.” … “Man” Gray asserts in Straw Dogs (2003), “is only one of many species, and not obviously worth preserving.” And in case you’re still feeling a bit cocky, he adds: “human life has no more meaning than that of slime mould.” … Stephen Hawking’s declaration in 1995 on a TV show, Reality on the Rocks: Beyond Our Ken, that “the human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate size planet, orbiting round a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a billion galaxies” is much quoted. If we beg to differ, perhaps is it only because we are like the mosquito who, according to Nietzsche, “floats through the air… feeling within himself the flying centre of the universe”? (‘On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense’, 1873.),,, There is something repugnant about this nihilistic grandstanding. For a start, it’s insincere. Voltaire did not consider himself merely an insect, any more than Gray considers slime mould his peer, or Hawking regards Hawking as a quantum of chemical scum. https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/You_Chemical_Scum_You
I guess one could try to argue that Darwinian evolution is not inherently racist since each life is equally worthless, but that is to ignore the horror unleashed by the scientific racism that is integral to Darwin's theory, and it is also to ignore Darwin's own words,,, i.e. "“I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”,,,
What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin - Phil Moore / April 19, 2017 Excerpt: ,,, the British thinker who justified genocide.,,, 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." - C. Darwin,,, Christian reformers had spent decades in the early 19th century teaching Britain to view non-European races as their equals before God. In a matter of years, Darwin swept not only God off the table, but also the value of people of every race with him. Enabling Genocide Victorian Britain was too willing to accept Darwinian evolution as its gospel of overseas expansion. Darwin is still celebrated on the back of the British £10 note for his discovery of many new species on his visit to Australia; what’s been forgotten, though, is his contemptible attitude—due to his beliefs about natural selection—toward the Aborigines he found there. When The Melbourne Review used Darwin’s teachings to justify the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, he didn’t try and stop them. When the Australian newspaper argued that “the inexorable law of natural selection [justifies] exterminating the inferior Australian and Maori races”—that “the world is better for it” since failure to do so would be “promoting the non-survival of the fittest, protecting the propagation of the imprudent, the diseased, the defective, and the criminal”—it was Christian missionaries who raised an outcry on behalf of this forgotten genocide. Darwin simply commented, “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”,,, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin
Darwinists simply don't like to hear the truth about Darwin. But the fact of the matter is that Darwin was indeed a racist, a misogynist and a eugenicist
Noah Carl: I’m a sociologist who got canceled – and I fear CHARLES DARWIN might not survive this purge of science & history - 13 Jun, 2020 Excerpt: Up until now, Darwin has been considered something of a hero on the political left, due to the religious right’s opposition to the teaching of evolution in schools (or at least, their insistence that one should“teach the controversy” that supposedly surrounds evolution and creationism). However, it is quite possible there will soon be a reckoning. For Darwin’s writings contain ample statements that would put him far beyond the pale of what is now considered acceptable. First, differences between the sexes. In The Descent of Man, Darwin states that “the average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” And in an 1882 letter, he states that “women though generally superior to men to moral qualities are inferior intellectually,” and that “there seems to me to be a great difficulty from the laws of inheritance… in their becoming the intellectual equals of man.” He also observes in The Descent of Man that “the male sex is more variable in structure than the female.” This observation has since become known as the greater male variability hypothesis, and has been applied to a variety of human traits including, mostcontroversially, intelligence. 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. Third, eugenics. In The Descent of Man, Darwin states, “We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination… Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind.” He then observes, “It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” However, he also notes, “Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature… We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.” https://www.rt.com/op-ed/491673-sociologist-got-canceled-darwin-purge/
Here are a few other people who, besides Seversky, think Darwin was the greatest thing since sliced bread,
"A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf - pg 248 Stalin’s Brutal Faith Excerpt: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates: “I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said: “‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .’ “I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before. “‘How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed. “‘I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said. “‘What book is that?’ I enquired. “‘Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me” 1 1 E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing house, 1940), pp. 8-12. ,,, http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/ Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution Excerpt: Chairman Mao is known to have regarded Darwin and his disciple Huxley as his two favourite authors. https://creation.com/deconstructing-darwin-darwins-impact “V.I. Lenin, creator of the Soviet totalitarian state, kept a little statue on his desk—an ape sitting on a pile of books including mine [The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life], gazing at a human skull. And Mao Zedong, butcher of the tens of millions of his own countrymen, who regarded the German ‘Darwinismus’ writings as the foundation of Chinese ‘scientific socialism.’ This disciple mandated my works as reading material for the indoctrination phase of his lethal Great Leap Forward.” - Nickell John Romjue, I, Charles Darwin, p. 45 Darwin on Marx – by Richard William Nelson | Apr 18, 2010 Excerpt: Marx and Engels immediately recognized the significance of Darwin’s theory. Within weeks of the publication of The Origin of Species in November 1859, Engels wrote to Marx – “Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done…. One does, of course, have to put up with the crude English method.” Marx wrote back to Engels on December 19, 1860 – “This is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” The Origin of Species became the natural cause basis for Marx’s emerging class struggle movement. In a letter to comrade Ferdinand Lassalle, on January 16, 1861, Marx wrote – “Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.” Marx inscribed “sincere admirer” in Darwin’s copy of Marx’s first volume of Das Kapital in 1867. The importance of the theory of evolution for Communism was critical. In Das Kapital, Marx wrote – “Darwin has interested us in the history of Nature’s Technology, i.e., in the formation of the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of organs that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention?” To acknowledge Darwin’s influence, Marx asked to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/04/darwin-on-marx/
The unmitigated horror unleashed on the world by these men who cherished Darwin would be hard to exaggerate,
“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
How anyone could stand to be an apologist for such a horridly false worldview, as Darwinian evolution is, I have no idea, but alas Seversky, being the chemical scum that his worldview tells him that he is, somehow considers it his sacred duty, (if chemical scum can have a sacred duty), to defend such insane garbage as is inherent in his chosen worldview. Verse:
Matthew 7 15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
bornagain77_{July 3, 2020
July
07
Jul
3
03
2020
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Lol Sev I can make that exact argument for 90% of the stuff you complain about in the Bible Goerge Washington was a man of his time too and his statues are being ripped down So precious Darwin is not going to get a free pass and if you does then this mess isn’t about race So why did the Nazi use Darwinism Because it was their views Science is the authority on existence The science supported their view So they used it But Darwin’s original theory supported inter Species competition, making it inherently racist, Not to mention the fact that it was created by a racist, there’s no coincidence there, science is only as good as the person doing it If you Think it’s creationists and ID that give Darwin the halo you would be sadly mistaken, willfully ignorant, or you just do pay attention to new atheists Watch Dawkins. He alone proves that wrong Not to mention most of academiaAaronS1978_{July 3, 2020
July
07
Jul
3
03
2020
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

There isn't any soundness in what Darwin spewed back in the 19th century. History will judge him as a lost and clueless soulET_{July 3, 2020
July
07
Jul
3
03
2020
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

Did Darwin hold views that today we judge to be racist? Yes, he did. He was a man of his times, as we all are. Yet he was taught taxidermy by John Edmondstone, a freed slave whom he greatly respected, opposed slavery and contributed to the campaign against it. Does that make him racist? That his theory was enlisted by eugenicists or Nazis or communists is not his fault nor does it say anything about the soundness of his theory. To argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad consquentiam But as far as I can see, it's only ID/C proponents who have adorned Darwin with a halo. The rest of us just see him as an archetypal scientist and his enduring legacy is not in statuary but in the evolving theory of evolution which he founded. In fact, from my reading of the man, if you had told him that tearing down statues or monuments to him would help to eliminate racism from human society, he would have had no objection whatsoever. Besides, why are we bothering with 19th century racism when we clearly still have more than enough to go around today?Seversky_{July 3, 2020
July
07
Jul
3
03
2020
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

For the record: I have never heard anyone in the ID community talk of defacing or removing Darwin's statue. The mobs of Raging Stupids are not sent by us. From what one can tell, they probably could not distinguish between a statue of Darwin, of Martin Luther King, or of Mary, mother of Jesus. If only they could lose themselves in a cornfield somewhere, on their way to wreck their next target... It's unclear why they are tolerated but that's a story for someone else to cover. All we wanted was an honest discussion of the role that Darwinism has played in "scientific" racism.News_{July 3, 2020
July
07
Jul
3
03
2020
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

The mobs who tear down statues and want to destroy all marks of history, have created an impossibly purity test that no one can live up to. Charles Darwin was a racist whose work led directly to the eugenics movement and gave credence to the evils of communism. If there is no God, then there can be no moral foundation for anything. If people are nothing more than animals, then they can be slaughtered as animals are slaughtered. Stalin and Hitler were both influenced by Darwin's writings. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who supported Nazis. Her work to pass forced sterilization laws in California was what the Nazis based their own sterilization laws after. The Nazis referred to it as the California plan. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood and held up as every bit the saint as Darwin is today. Hillary Clinton, upon receiving the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood, said that she greatly admired everything Margaret Sanger did.BobRyan_{July 3, 2020
July
07
Jul
3
03
2020
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

And I think everybody needs to know that, so when those raging mobs that want to rip down Abraham Lincoln statue because apparently somehow manages to be racist, , Christopher Columbus, and George Washington, I just want to make sure that there’s a certain group also gets to suffer right along side everybody else as a watch their precious darling Darwin get ripped down by the same angry mobs they helped create Because he legitimately was a racistAaronS1978_{July 3, 2020
July
07
Jul
3
03
2020
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

Charles Darwin was more than just an average racist of his day. He was the father of eugenics and his writing influenced all the evils that occurred as a result.BobRyan_{July 2, 2020
July
07
Jul
2
02
2020
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply