Darwinism Intelligent Design Racism

Biologist tackles “evolution” and racism with commendable zeal…

Spread the love

… but varying results:

Today Dan Lowe, friend in political philosophy sent me this article, written by a group of political scientists. They conducted a survey in which they asked 2000 participants (who were all white) to rank how ‘evolved’ they believe blacks and whites to be using a 0-100 scale placed below a popular depiction of the “ascent of man”, an image which undoubtedly stirs up ladder-of-life thinking.

Thirty-eight percent of the respondents rated blacks less evolved, with rationales including being more ‘closer to’ or ‘like animals’. The researchers report being surprised by these results, but I am not at all surprised. Not just because we know that racism is prevalent in our country, but also because the public understanding of evolution, and particularly common ancestry, is depressingly low.

Anyone who has been taught evolution (including tree thinking) should protest, no humans could ever be considered less ‘evolved’ than any other! All humans are more closely related to each other than to any other species, so none of us is ‘closer to animals’! Anyway, all of us are animals.

Stacy Smith, “The phylogenetics of equality” at For the love of trees (December 2, 2016)

Well, wait. If we’re all animals, we’re all as close to animals as we can be. Aren’t people are getting their Darwinisms all jumbled up?

Here’s the article Smith is referring to.

And here’s a Twitter thread from just yesterday where Smith goes after the Ascent of Man graphic. You know the one: slob to yob to Bob …

At one point, she says, “If we let the notion slide that some living species are primitive, ancestral, less evolved, it’s all too easy for those ideas to seep into society and be extrapolated to humans.”

Okay. The awkward problem is that, to most people, evolution means Darwinism, period. And until comparatively recently, that’s what Darwin’s followers genuinely did believe. It wasn’t an extrapolation, it was part of their global belief system — as it was of Darwin’s. It’s no use looking hither and yon for how that “less evolved” idea got started. At one time, racism was based on a variety of folklore grounds; Darwin came along and made it sound scientific.

Anyway, sure we’re animals. But so what? Wayne Rossiter, author of Shadow of Oz: Theistic Evolution and the Absent God, comments “Just some snark here, but the irony, of course, is that she represents the only species that types on engineered computers to argue reasoned positions based on objective logic. When a chimp or amoeba does this, I’ll buy her position.”

The thing is, if we don’t believe that we are all more than animals, what does a battle against racism amount to? Shunning the outsider is normal animal behavior. Maybe it;s adaptive. So on what basis, exactly, does Smith think we should be different?

14 Replies to “Biologist tackles “evolution” and racism with commendable zeal…

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    And here’s a Twitter thread from just yesterday where Smith goes after the Ascent of Man graphic. You know the one: slob to yob to Bob …

    If you’re suggesting I’m the pinnacle of evolution, then I can only heartily agree with you.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    In modern discussion, “less evolved” means Christians and Muslims and Republicans.

    The rule is constant, with names changed to protect the guilty in each era.

    Kings and queens are always “most evolved”, the courtiers who believe themselves to be like the aristocrats are next in line, and peasants are “least evolved”.

    If they observed REALITY and applied the actual principles of natural selection, the stack would be reversed. Peasants are ruthlessly selected by disease and hard work and war, leaving only the most healthy, and peasants also have the most kids. Aristocrats are never selected out, have very few kids, and are totally incestuous and inbred.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    Is what we call racism, a natural part of human behavior. Meant to protect oneself.

    I have brought up this example a few times for what was taught us in Organizational Behavior in business school.

    As an experiment two homogeneous groups were separated and given different tasks. Each group was separated so there was no interaction between them. But they were visible to each other.

    In a short time, each group developed negative attitudes towards the other group and it increased as time went on. Then one person from each group was exchanged and each group learned what the other was doing.

    Attitudes immediately changed from the previous negative attitudes.

    Now I know this is not exactly what the OP describes but shows that what is referred to as racism or negatives attitudes toward another group is natural and is often artificially engendered by separation.

    In our world what separates most of us is culture. We tend to feel more comfortable in our own culture. This is true all around the world not just in our own little corner of it.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Bob at 1 takes pride in being the supposed ‘pinnacle’ of evolution.

    Bob stated, “If you’re suggesting I’m the pinnacle of evolution, then I can only heartily agree with you.”

    Yet without God in their picture, other Atheists offer a more sobering assessment of man’s dire situation if the Atheistic worldview is true. A depressingly dire worldview where all true meaning, value, and purpose for man’s life is stripped away from man’s assessment of his own life,

    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.” ,,,
    Biology has been the inspiration in some cases. The philosopher and professional misanthrope John Gray has argued that Darwin has cured us of the delusions we might have had about our place in the order of things – we are beasts, metaphysically on all fours with the other beasts. “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.” Slime mould? Yikes! Can it get any worse?
    Yes it can. For physics has again been recruited to the great project of disproving our greatness. 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. Behind the desire to shock is the wish to demonstrate that the writer sees deeper and further than others, and thus are able to pierce the layers of self-delusion which support humans’ sense of their own importance. However, this diagnosis of these thinkers is not enough. We need to look harder at these digs at the dignity of man and woman before shrugging our shoulders and moving on.
    They originate from exceptionally intelligent people – even though two minutes’ thought by persons of average I.Q. would be sufficient to show that the very act of making such statements proves their untruth. They are thus examples of something that philosophers call ‘pragmatic self-refutation’. If we really were insects we would not have the concept of an insect; nor would we be able to characterise (in order to denigrate) our habitat as an atom (technical term) of mud (a term used metaphorically). If our lives really had no more meaning than that of a slime mould (an organism being invoked to stand for a broader category of Third-Rate Stuff), it would not have occurred to us that our lives had any meaning; even less would we make the mistake of rating this meaning above that of a slime mould. We would not need Professor Gray therefore to correct an elevated view of ourselves. And, finally, if we were ‘chemical scum’ on a par with the kind of material we normally call by this term, we would hardly have the concept either of ‘chemical’ or of ‘scum’. It does not dawn on the stuff that remains in the bath after the water has drained out that it is scum. Nor does real scum invoke rather abstract reasons for arriving at such an insight into its condition, as Hawking does – namely that we are “on a moderate size planet, orbiting round a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a billion galaxies.” If scum did entertain such ideas, I would be the first to agitate for Scum Rights and join the Scum Liberation Front.,,,
    https://philosophynow.org/issues/89/You_Chemical_Scum_You

    These Atheistic killjoys, who label us as no better than slime molds and chemical scum, have a far more accurate assessment of man’s situation, if God does not exist, than Bob does.

    As one writer has aptly put it, “If God is dead, then man is dead, too.”

    The Absurdity of Life without God – William Lane Craig
    If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death. Man, like all biological organisms, must die. With no hope of immortality, man’s life leads only to the grave. His life is but a spark in the infinite blackness, a spark that appears, flickers, and dies forever.,,,
    If there is no God, then man and the universe are doomed. Like prisoners condemned to death, we await our unavoidable execution. There is no God, and there is no immortality. And what is the consequence of this? It means that life itself is absurd. It means that the life we have is without ultimate significance, value, or purpose.,,,
    Do you understand the gravity of the alternatives before us? For if God exists, then there is hope for man. But if God does not exist, then all we are left with is despair. Do you understand why the question of God’s existence is so vital to man? As one writer has aptly put it, “If God is dead, then man is dead, too.”
    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-absurdity-of-life-without-god/

    Is There Meaning to Life? – Dr Craig videos (animated video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKGnXgH_CzE

    Fortunately for the rest of us slime molds on this atom of mud, the supposed scientific facts that these atheists have relied on in their sad assessment of man plight, (i.e. The Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity, and the false narrative of human evolution), are now known to be false scientific facts.

    April 2021 – the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity has now been overturned by both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, two of out most powerful theories in science:
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/asked-of-steve-meyer-if-humans-are-so-important-to-god-why-did-they-take-so-long-to-develop/#comment-727599

    Sept. 2020 – Refutation of Human Evolution – Fossil Record and Genetics
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/debunking-another-claim-that-an-alleged-pillar-of-human-exceptionalism-has-fallen/#comment-713398

    In fact, breakthroughs in quantum biology now also provide us with evidence for a transcendent component to our being that is capable, in principle, of living past the death of our temporal, material, bodies.

    In other words, advances in quantum biology provide us with some fairly strong evidence for a ‘soul’ that is capable of living past the death of our material bodies.

    Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg

    Thus, completely contrary to the dire nihilistic worldview of Atheism, man can hold head head high, not because of some false pride that he is the supposed ‘pinnacle’ of evolution over and above slime mold, but instead he can hold his head high because God himself has created man and has given man an eternal soul, and therefore man’s life does not end at the grave.

    As far as the evidence from science itself is concerned, Man’s life does indeed have true meaning, value, and significance!

    Mark 8:37
    Is anything worth more than your soul?

  5. 5
    Karen McMannus says:

    Jerry,

    What you’re referring to is tribalism, a basic “us vs them” survival/competition instinct with regard to resources both physical and abstract. It manifests itself in a hierarchy at various levels of importance within individuals. Examples include, race, culture, nationality, what family you’re from, what neighborhood you’re from, social standing, social position, social capital (including wealth, beauty, intelligence, creativity, fame, education), political views, what company you work for, what gang/club you’re a member of, personal interests (music, sports, sports teams, food, intellectual pursuits.) On and on.

    There’s a reason jocks pick on the nerds in high school.

    Us vs them.

    It’s a fundamental organizing principle of human nature.

    Birds of a feather flock together, as the old saw goes.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    As to this comment:

    Thirty-eight percent of the respondents rated blacks less evolved, with rationales including being more ‘closer to’ or ‘like animals’. The researchers report being surprised by these results, but I am not at all surprised. Not just because we know that racism is prevalent in our country, but also because the public understanding of evolution, and particularly common ancestry, is depressingly low.

    I wonder how Stacy Smith squares his or her belief that Darwin’s theory isn’t inherently racist with Darwin’s very own words?

    “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”
    – Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1874, p. 178

    Does Stacy Smith believe that Charles Darwin did not understand his own theory?

    Might I be so bold as to suggest that Darwin understood his theory far better than Stacy Smith apparently does?

    As the following article notes, Racism was ‘not a bug but a feature’ of Darwin’s theory. “(Darwin) 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.”

    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/

    And just in case Stacy Smith doubts that those were indeed Darwin’s very own views, in response to the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, Darwin stated, “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

    How do you like Charles Darwin now Stacy Smith?

    I suggest that if Stacy Smith really wants to fight racism, and teach others that all men are equal, then I highly recommend that he or she immediately stop teaching Darwin’s pseudoscientific, and inherently racist, theory, and become a Christian and start teaching the truth of Christianity instead.

    It is only within Christianity that equality for all men can be firmly grounded and justified as morally self evident.

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

    Timothy 2:3-6
    This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.

    In fact, Christianity happens to be exactly where the United States Constitution got its ‘self evident truth’ that all men are created equal.

    Words & Dirt – Quotes 10-21-2015 – by Miles Raymer
    Excerpt: Let us try to translate the most famous line of the American Declaration of Independence into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
    According to the science of biology, people were not ‘created’. They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be ‘equal’. The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a divinely created soul, and that all souls are equal before God. However, if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation and souls, what does it mean that all people are ‘equal’? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. ‘Created equal’ should therefore be translated into ‘evolved differently’.,,,
    So here is that line from the American Declaration of Independence translated into biological terms:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved differently, that they are born with certain mutable characteristics, and that among these are life and the pursuit of pleasure.
    http://www.words-and-dirt.com/.....0-21-2015/

    Of supplemental note: ENV has an article up today by Professor Richard Weikart addressing how Darwinists are, (once again), trying to distance Darwin’s theory from the genocidal atrocities committed by Adolf Hitler:

    New Book: Social Darwinism and “The Hitler Problem” – Richard Weikart – April 23, 2021
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/04/new-book-social-darwinism-and-the-hitler-problem/

    Quotes from Darwin and Hitler, and a Bible verse

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    “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 – Chapter 4

    Matthew 5:5
    Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

    One final note:

    Atheism’s Body Count *
    It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world.
    – Atheism’s Tendency Towards Totalitarianism Rather Than Freedom
    What is so strange and odd that in spite of their outward rejection of religion and all its superstitions, they feel compelled to set up cults of personality and worship of the State and its leaders that is so totalitarian that the leaders are not satisfied with mere outward obedience; rather they insist on total mind control and control of thoughts, ideas and beliefs. They institute Gulags and “re-education” centers to indoctrinate anyone who even would dare question any action or declaration of the “Dear Leader.” Even the Spanish Inquisition cannot compare to the ruthlessness and methodical efficiency of these programs conducted on so massive a scale. While proclaiming freedom to the masses, they institute the most methodical efforts to completely eliminate freedom from the people, and they do so all “on behalf” of the proletariat. A completely ordered and totally unfree totalitarian State is routinely set up in place of religion, because it is obviously so profoundly better society. It is also strange that Stalin was a seminarian who rejected Christianity and went on to set up himself as an object of worship. It seems that impulse to religious devotion is present in all, whether that be in traditional forms or secular inventions.
    https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/

  7. 7
    Seversky says:

    Anyone who has been taught evolution (including tree thinking) should protest, no humans could ever be considered less ‘evolved’ than any other! All humans are more closely related to each other than to any other species, so none of us is ‘closer to animals’! Anyway, all of us are animals. We belong to a branch of the tree that we call animals, and we are all equally related to other animals. Moreover, it is meaningless and biologically incorrect to consider any group of living organisms primitive or ‘less evolved’. The real danger of any suggestion otherwise is that there is some biological or evolutionary rationale for racism. We must be emphatic that there is not

    We have also discarded the notion that evolution is movement from a less ‘advanced’ to a more ‘advanced’ state. It is simply change over time, some – but not all – of it adaptation to environments which are themselves changing over time.

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Bob O’H/1

    If you’re suggesting I’m the pinnacle of evolution, then I can only heartily agree with you.

    Now, whenever I hear Christians refer to humanity as the pinnacle of God’s creation, I’m going to think of Bob O’H.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    Karen McMannus/5

    What you’re referring to is tribalism, a basic “us vs them” survival/competition instinct with regard to resources both physical and abstract. It manifests itself in a hierarchy at various levels of importance within individuals. Examples include, race, culture, nationality, what family you’re from, what neighborhood you’re from, social standing, social position, social capital (including wealth, beauty, intelligence, creativity, fame, education), political views, what company you work for, what gang/club you’re a member of, personal interests (music, sports, sports teams, food, intellectual pursuits.) On and on

    I think KM has hit the proverbial nail right on the head. Whether tribalism or racism, the seeds of it are in all of us. It’s part of human nature and it will be a problem for all human societies until we acknowledge it as such and make a conscious effort to get past it. The question is will we – can we – ever do that? Because if we don’t there’s going to be a lot more blood spilled.

  10. 10
    Seversky says:

    Bornagain77/6

    I wonder how Stacy Smith squares his or her belief that Darwin’s theory isn’t inherently racist with Darwin’s very own words?

    Scientific theories are not intended to provide moral advice, nor can you legitimately cross the is/ought gap to infer it from them.

    And just in case Stacy Smith doubts that those were indeed Darwin’s very own views, in response to the genocide of indigenous Australians in 1876, Darwin stated, “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

    […]

    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.”,,,

    I warned you before about putting too much faith in a so-called Christian who ignores his own Ninth Commandment in such an outrageous fashion. The following is from an article by philosopher Ted Davis on the Biologos website

    Moore did something even more egregious directly under his heading, “Enabling Genocide.” Here is the relevant part of his paragraph about Darwin’s attitude toward the Aboriginal Australians:

    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 [this link to a print source for the following quotation is provided by Moore], “I do not know of a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage race.”

    Moore directly implies that the sentence quoted from Darwin sums up his response to genocide in Australia, for which his ideas had been offered as justification. Nothing could be further from the truth. Darwin wrote those words in his portion of a jointly authored work, The Narrative of the Voyages of His Majesty’s Ships Adventure and Beagle (London, 1839), nearly four decades before the incident described above. Here is the paragraph from which those words were ripped (p. 533):

    All the aborigines have been removed to an island in Bass’s Straits, so that Van Diemen’s Land enjoys the great advantage of being free from a native population. This most cruel step seems to have been quite unavoidable, as the only means of stopping a fearful succession of robberies, burnings, and murders, committed by the blacks; but which sooner or later must have ended in their utter destruction. I fear there is no doubt that this train of evil and its consequences, originated in the infamous conduct of some of our countrymen. Thirty years is a short period, in which to have banished the last aboriginal from his native island,—and that island nearly as large as Ireland. I do not know a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage people.

    To present the final sentence so outrageously out of context is dishonest, to put it mildly. Darwin called the forcible moving of native people “most cruel,” and then he unambiguously condemned the whole “infamous” situation as a “train of evil” for which the English were to blame. If that is not an expression of moral opposition to genocide, then I don’t know what such an expression would look like.

    Do you really believe that “lying for Jesus” advances the cause of Christianity?

  11. 11
    Karen McMannus says:

    Seversky: I think KM has hit the proverbial nail right on the head. Whether tribalism or racism,

    Um, well, it’s not tribalism or racism. Racism is one variable among the many variables of tribalism.

    Human classification of the “other.” And not merely binary, but a hierarchy.

    Hopefully this is obvious to all after a few minutes of reflection.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, thanks for the correction. I will remove Phil Moores article and replace it with Darwin’s own words so as to accurately reflect the fact that his theory is inherently racist:

    “All the aborigines have been removed to an island in Bass’s Straits, so that Van Diemen’s Land enjoys the great advantage of being free from a native population. This most cruel step seems to have been quite unavoidable, as the only means of stopping a fearful succession of robberies, burnings, and murders, committed by the blacks; but which sooner or later must have ended in their utter destruction. I fear there is no doubt that this train of evil and its consequences, originated in the infamous conduct of some of our countrymen. Thirty years is a short period, in which to have banished the last aboriginal from his native island,and that island nearly as large as Ireland. I do not know a more striking instance of the comparative rate of increase of a civilized over a savage people.,,,,”
    “Wherever the European has trod, death seems to pursue the aboriginal. We may look to the wide extent of the Americas, Polynesia, the Cape of Good Hope, and Australia, and we shall find the same result. Nor is it the white man alone, that thus acts the destroyer; the Polynesian of Malay extraction has in parts of the East Indian archipelago, thus driven before him the dark-coloured native. The varieties of man seem to act on each other; in the same way as different species of animals the stronger always extirpating the weaker.”
    – Charles Darwin – Voyage – from pp. 533 and 580 (1839)

    And Seversky, I don’t know why you accused me of purposely ‘lying for Jesus’. I was honestly mistaken in quoting Moore, and I never claimed that Darwin himself was personally racist. I claimed that his THEORY is inherently racist. That much is obvious.

    Your correction, since I am now quoting Darwin himself in fuller context, only further strengthens my claim that Darwin’s theory is inherently racist.

    For crying out loud, Racism is literally built into his theory as the ‘one general law”

    “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”
    – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

    “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 – Chapter 4

    Matthew 5:5
    Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    And Seversky, since you are now apparently very much concerned with being rigorously truthful, can you please tell me how “Truth” itself can be possibly grounded within the reductive materialism of Darwin’s theory?

    You see Seversky, according to Darwin’s theory, “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.”

    “Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth. Sometimes the truth is adaptive, but sometimes it is not.”
    – Steven Pinker

    and, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.”

    “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true,… the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.”
    – John Gray

    and, “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.”

    “Sometimes you are more likely to survive and propagate if you believe a falsehood than if you believe the truth.”
    – Eric Baum

    and, “Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”

    “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not concerned with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
    – Richard Dawkins – quoted from “The God Delusion”

    Moreover, this inability for Darwin’s theory to ground ‘truth’ undercuts not only the claim Darwin’s theory is true, but also undercuts the entire scientific method itself.

    As Nancy Pearcey explains, “Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,, Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.”

    Why Evolutionary Theory Cannot Survive Itself
    Nancy Pearcey – March 8, 2015
    Excerpt: An example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth-value.
    But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth — which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.,,,
    Applied consistently, Darwinism undercuts not only itself but also the entire scientific enterprise. Kenan Malik, a writer trained in neurobiology, writes, “If our cognitive capacities were simply evolved dispositions, there would be no way of knowing which of these capacities lead to true beliefs and which to false ones.” Thus “to view humans as little more than sophisticated animals …undermines confidence in the scientific method.”,,,
    Of course, the atheist pursuing his research has no choice but to rely on rationality, just as everyone else does. The point is that he has no philosophical basis for doing so. Only those who affirm a rational Creator have a basis for trusting human rationality.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/why_evolutionar/

    And as if that was not bad enough for Darwinian materialists, the Darwinist, because of his materialistic presuppositions, is forced to believe that ALL the perceptions that he is having of reality are illusory and are, therefore, not truthful.

    Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist, via extensive analysis of the mathematics of population genetics, has proven that, if Darwinian evolution is assumed as being true, then ALL of our perceptions of reality would be illusory

    Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is? – Video – 9:59 minute mark
    Quote: “fitness does depend on reality as it is, yes.,,, Fitness is not the same thing as reality as it is, and it is fitness, and not reality as it is, that figures centrally in the equations of evolution. So, in my lab, we have run hundreds of thousands of evolutionary game simulations with lots of different randomly chosen worlds and organisms that compete for resources in those worlds. Some of the organisms see all of the reality. Others see just part of the reality. And some see none of the reality. Only fitness. Who wins? Well I hate to break it to you but perception of reality goes extinct. In almost every simulation, organisms that see none of reality, but are just tuned to fitness, drive to extinction (those organisms) that perceive reality as it is. So the bottom line is, evolution does not favor veridical, or accurate perceptions. Those (accurate) perceptions of reality go extinct. Now this is a bit stunning. How can it be that not seeing the world accurately gives us a survival advantage?”
    https://youtu.be/oYp5XuGYqqY?t=601

    The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality – April 2016
    The cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman uses evolutionary game theory to show that our perceptions of an independent reality must be illusions.
    Excerpt: “The classic argument is that those of our ancestors who saw more accurately had a competitive advantage over those who saw less accurately and thus were more likely to pass on their genes that coded for those more accurate perceptions, so after thousands of generations we can be quite confident that we’re the offspring of those who saw accurately, and so we see accurately. That sounds very plausible. But I think it is utterly false. It misunderstands the fundamental fact about evolution, which is that it’s about fitness functions — mathematical functions that describe how well a given strategy achieves the goals of survival and reproduction. The mathematical physicist Chetan Prakash proved a theorem that I devised that says: According to evolution by natural selection, an organism that sees reality as it is will never be more fit than an organism of equal complexity that sees none of reality but is just tuned to fitness. Never.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160421-the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality/

    Since reliable observation is an indispensable part of the scientific method itself, in fact reliable is the first step in, and therefore the cornerstone of, the scientific method,

    The scientific method
    At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
    1. Make an observation.
    2. Ask a question.
    3, Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
    4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
    5. Test the prediction.
    6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.
    The scientific method is used in all sciences—including chemistry, physics, geology, and psychology. The scientists in these fields ask different questions and perform different tests. However, they use the same core approach to find answers that are logical and supported by evidence.
    https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-biology-foundations/hs-biology-and-the-scientific-method/a/the-science-of-biology

    Since reliable observation is an indispensable part of the scientific method itself, then the Darwinian claim that ALL our perceptions of reality are illusory, and therefore not truthful, undermines the scientific method itself.

    Fortunately for us, science itself, (real science, and not the ‘scientism’ of Atheistic materialists), could care less if Darwinists are forced to believe that ALL their perceptions of reality are illusory and are not truthful.

    Specifically, advances in Quantum Mechanics have now experimentally proven that our observations of reality far more integral to reality, and therefore reliable of reality, than Darwinists are forced to claim via the mathematics of population genetics.

    As the following Wheeler Delayed Choice experiment that was conducted with atoms found, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”

    New Mind-blowing Experiment Confirms That Reality Doesn’t Exist If You Are Not Looking at It – June 3, 2015
    Excerpt: Some particles, such as photons or electrons, can behave both as particles and as waves. Here comes a question of what exactly makes a photon or an electron act either as a particle or a wave. This is what Wheeler’s experiment asks: at what point does an object ‘decide’?
    The results of the Australian scientists’ experiment, which were published in the journal Nature Physics, show that this choice is determined by the way the object is measured, which is in accordance with what quantum theory predicts.
    “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,” said lead researcher Dr. Andrew Truscott in a press release.,,,
    “The atoms did not travel from A to B. It was only when they were measured at the end of the journey that their wave-like or particle-like behavior was brought into existence,” he said.
    Thus, this experiment adds to the validity of the quantum theory and provides new evidence to the idea that reality doesn’t exist without an observer.
    – per themindunleashed

    And as the following violation of Leggett’s inequality found, “Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it.”

    Quantum physics says goodbye to reality – Apr 20, 2007
    Excerpt: Many realizations of the thought experiment have indeed verified the violation of Bell’s inequality. These have ruled out all hidden-variables theories based on joint assumptions of realism, meaning that reality exists when we are not observing it; and locality, meaning that separated events cannot influence one another instantaneously. But a violation of Bell’s inequality does not tell specifically which assumption – realism, locality or both – is discordant with quantum mechanics.
    Markus Aspelmeyer, Anton Zeilinger and colleagues from the University of Vienna, however, have now shown that realism is more of a problem than locality in the quantum world. They devised an experiment that violates a different inequality proposed by physicist Anthony Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism, and relaxes the reliance on locality. To do this, rather than taking measurements along just one plane of polarization, the Austrian team took measurements in additional, perpendicular planes to check for elliptical polarization.
    They found that, just as in the realizations of Bell’s thought experiment, Leggett’s inequality is violated – thus stressing the quantum-mechanical assertion that reality does not exist when we’re not observing it. “Our study shows that ‘just’ giving up the concept of locality would not be enough to obtain a more complete description of quantum mechanics,” Aspelmeyer told Physics Web. “You would also have to give up certain intuitive features of realism.”
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640

    Thus, fortunately for us, science itself could care less if Darwinists are forced to believe that ALL their perceptions of reality are illusory and are therefore not truthful.

    As far as experimental science itself is concerned, the Darwinist’s materialistic belief that ALL our perceptions of reality must be illusory, and therefore not truthful, is experimentally falsified.

    But we really didn’t need cutting edge experiments from quantum mechanics to show us that the reductive materialism of Darwin’s theory could not possibly provide a coherent foundation for ‘the truth’.

    You see, ‘truth’ in general, and absolute truth in particular, are abstract immaterial properties of the immaterial mind that can never be grounded within the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic worldview. In fact, as much as it may irk atheists to know, “Truth” can only ever be properly grounded within Theism:

    Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God – Peter Kreeft
    11. The Argument from Truth
    This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine.
    1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being.
    2. Truth properly resides in a mind.
    3. But the human mind is not eternal.
    4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside.
    https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11

    Many secularists tried, and still try, to hold that ‘truth’ in general, and absolute truth in particular can be grounded within mathematics. For example, the search for a purely mathematical ‘theory of Everything’.

    But, besides the fact that mathematics itself is an abstract immaterial entity that can never be grounded within the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic worldview,

    What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018
    Excerpt: In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.
    https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html

    ,,, besides the fact that mathematics itself is an abstract immaterial entity that can never be grounded within the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic worldview,,, Kurt Gödel, with his incompleteness theorem, dropped a bomb on the foundation of mathematics and brought the secularist’s dream, that truth could be grounded within mathematics all by its lonesome, crashing down.

    THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS – DAVID P. GOLDMAN – August 2010
    Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel’s critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes.
    – per first things

    “Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”.”
    Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)

    Thus, since ‘truth’ itself is a abstract immaterial entity which is not reducible to some mathematical equation, much less is it reducible to some reductive materialistic explanation, then presupposing Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism as the supposed “ground rule for science”, (as the vast majority of American universities do today), actually precludes ‘The Truth’ from ever being reached by science!

    Since their worldview can’t possibly ground ‘the truth’, might I suggest that Darwinian Materialists/Naturalists broaden their scope for what they are willing to accept as the ultimate ‘truth
    in their search for the ultimate truth about reality’?

    Verses, video, and article:

    John 8:32
    Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

    John 14:6
    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    “If you were to take Mohammed out of Islam, and Buddha out of Buddhism, and Confucius out of Confucianism you would still have a faith system that was relatively in tact. However, taking Christ out of Christianity sinks the whole faith completely. This is because Jesus centred the faith on himself. He said, “This is what it means to have eternal life: to know God the Father and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent” (John 17:3). “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12). Buddha, before dying, said in effect, “I am still seeking for the truth.” Mohammed said in effect, “I point you to the truth.” Jesus said, “I am the truth.” Jesus claimed to not only give the truth, but to be the very personal embodiment of it.”
    – per common ground

  14. 14
    aarceng says:

    “Anyone who has been taught evolution (including tree thinking) should protest, no humans could ever be considered less ‘evolved’ than any other!”

    But in evolutionary theory there is no preferred direction to evolution so starting from a common ancestor one group could become more evolved while another group devolves, and a third evolves sideways. Nor do all groups have to evolve at the same rate. So in the end one group could be “more evolved” than another.

    Of course I consider MY group to be the most highly evolved and other groups to be less evolved, some little better than that hypothetical ape man. In this view I consider that my more highly evolved group can, and should, eventually replace those less evolved ones.

Leave a Reply