Darwinian conservative has a troubling history re racist links

Thus Seversky, the 'anti-morality' inherent in Darwin's 'survival of the fittest' mechanism, contrary to what you believe, actually does falsify the validity of Darwin's theory. Of course you claimed that the atrocities of the atheistic/Darwinian regimes of the 20th century, in and of themselves, does not falsify Darwin's theory, but I would also beg to differ on that front. Francis Bacon, whom many consider to be the founder of the scientific method, put the ‘fruitfulness’ criteria for determining whether something is science or not this way,,,

"Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy" Francis Bacon - widely regarded as the founder of the scientific method,, a devout Anglican Christian https://books.google.com/books?id=xlPFDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17#v=onepage&q&f=false

This is a particularly interesting falsification of Darwinian evolution to think about. Scientific theories have a history of deepening man’s understanding of Nature, and thus providing man with beneficial technological breakthroughs because of that deepened understanding of nature (For instance, Newton’s theory of Gravity was ‘good enough’ to land men on the moon). Evolution, unlike those other scientific theories, has completely failed on this account to foster research and deliver technological breakthroughs:

“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006). “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005 “While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).

In fact, instead of fostering discovery, it can be forcefully argued that Darwinian evolution has hindered scientific discovery, and has led to much scientific and medical malpractice, by falsely predicting both junk DNA and vestigial organs. Moreover, besides failing to deliver on scientific, technological, or medical breakthroughs, it can also be forcefully argued, via hundreds of millions of deaths, that Darwinian evolution has also had a tremendous negative impact on society in so far as it has influenced society at large:

From Darwin to Hitler - Richard Weikart https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_5EwYpLD6A How Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, and Lenin were all directly influenced by Darwinian ideology https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/historian-human-evolution-theorists-were-attempting-to-be-moral-teachers/#comment-668170 "If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instincts, heredity, and environment, we feed the despair to which man is, in any case, already prone. I became acquainted with the last stages of corruption in my second concentration camp in Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment—or, as the Nazis liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers." —Viktor E. Frankl, Holocaust survivor and Professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Vienna Medical School; from his book, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy, 1982, p. xxi).

Thus, in regards to Francis Bacon’s criteria of determining whether a theory is scientific, i.e. “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy”, then certainly Darwin’s theory has miserably failed to meet Bacon’s falsification criteria of “fruit produced” and is indeed a shining example of that particular falsification criteria being met over and over again. Verse:

Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Seversky, you finish up your post by trying to further denigrate Lincoln's Christian morality. Yet, besides the fact that you, as an atheist, have no objective moral basis for judging anyone, might I also point out the fact that he actually freed the slaves is a rather dramatic 'moral' point in favor of his Christianity? Or has that little detail slipped your notice? bornagain77

Moreover, to dive a little bit deeper, the falsification of this ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. ‘selfish’, thinking occurs at the molecular level too. Dawkins’ ‘selfish gene’ concept is more of less directly based on Darwin’s own ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking about competition. Yet genes are now found to be anything but selfish. Instead of being ‘selfish’, genes are now found to be existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation (the antithesis of selfishness).

What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? – JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait – June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/ Gene Pleiotropy Roadblocks Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D. – Dec. 8, 2016 Excerpt: Before the advent of modern molecular biology, scientists defined a gene as a single unit of inheritance. If a gene was found to influence multiple externally visible traits, it was said to be pleiotropic—a term first used in 1910.2 During this early period of genetic discovery, pleiotropy was considered to be quite rare because scientists assumed most genes only possessed a single function—a simplistic idea that remained popular throughout most of the 20th century. However, as our understanding of genetics grew through DNA science, it became clear that genes operate in complex interconnected networks. Furthermore, individual genes produce multiple variants of end products with different effects through a variety of intricate mechanisms.2,3 Taken together, these discoveries show that pleiotropy is a common feature of nearly every gene.,,, The pleiotropy evolution problem is widely known among secular geneticists, but rarely discussed in the popular media. In this new research report, the authors state, “Many studies have provided evidence for the ability of pleiotropy to constrain gene evolution.”,,, “Our study provided supportive evidence that pleiotropy constraints the evolution of transcription factors (Tfs).”,,, The authors state, “We showed that highly pleiotropic genes are more likely to be associated with a disease phenotype.”,,, http://www.icr.org/article/9747

Such ‘holistic cooperation’ is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’ as Dawkins had envisioned. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being basically a religion for atheists, count as another direct falsification of the theory). In fact on top of genes being in a holistic web of mutual cooperation, the genetic responses of humans are designed in a very sophisticated way so as to differentiate between hedonic (selfish) and ‘noble’ (altruistic) moral happiness:

Human Cells Respond in Healthy, Unhealthy Ways to Different Kinds of Happiness – July 29, 2013 Excerpt: Human bodies recognize at the molecular level that not all happiness is created equal, responding in ways that can help or hinder physical health,,, The sense of well-being derived from “a noble purpose” may provide cellular health benefits, whereas “simple self-gratification” may have negative effects, despite an overall perceived sense of happiness, researchers found.,,, But if all happiness is created equal, and equally opposite to ill-being, then patterns of gene expression should be the same regardless of hedonic or eudaimonic well-being. Not so, found the researchers. Eudaimonic well-being was, indeed, associated with a significant decrease in the stress-related CTRA gene expression profile. In contrast, hedonic well-being was associated with a significant increase in the CTRA profile. Their genomics-based analyses, the authors reported, reveal the hidden costs of purely hedonic well-being.,, “We can make ourselves happy through simple pleasures, but those ‘empty calories’ don’t help us broaden our awareness or build our capacity in ways that benefit us physically,” she said. “At the cellular level, our bodies appear to respond better to a different kind of well-being, one based on a sense of connectedness and purpose.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729161952.htm

Moreover on top of all that, if anything ever went against Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”, it is the notion that a single cell can somehow became tens of trillions of cells that cooperate “exclusively for the good of other cells” in a single organism for the singular purpose of keeping that single organism alive. To claim that one cell transforming into the tens of trillions cells, (of extremely cooperative, even altruistic, cells that make up our ONE human body), is anything less than a miracle is either sheer arrogance or profound and willful ignorance (most likely both).

One Body – animation – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDMLq6eqEM4 Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: “It’s a Mystery, It’s Magic, It’s Divinity” – March 2012 Excerpt: ‘The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It’s a mystery, it’s magic, it’s divinity.’ http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....57741.html “The mere fact that a firefly comes from a single cell that then develops into a firefly puts it in a completely different league [from an iPhone]. That doesn’t happen with smartphones. Factories make smartphones. Fireflies come from fireflies and come from an initial fertilized cell. It’s absolutely mind-boggling. We have no idea how a single cell produces an adult. These things are marvelous.” – Doug Axe PhD. molecular biology – The Problem with Theistic Evolution – video – 1:00 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndRBUyW6EbM How Quantum Mechanics and Consciousness Correlate (27:15 minute mark – how quantum information theory relates to molecular biology) https://youtu.be/4f0hL3Nrdas?t=1635 Darwinism vs Biological Form - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

bornagain77

Seversky, you claim that Darwin's supposed 'scientific' theory was 'perverted' after his death.

Darwin was not responsible for whatever purposes his theory may have been perverted to serve after his death.

Yet the moral implications of Darwin's theory was pointed out to Darwin himself by Sedgwick, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,,"

From Adam Sedgwick - 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly; parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow; because I think them utterly false & grievously mischievous. You have deserted—after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth—the the true method of induction—& started up a machinery as wild I think as Bishop Wilkin’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the Moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?. As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,, You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,, We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,, There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly. Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro’ final cause , link material to moral; & yet does not allow us to mingle them in our first conception of laws, & our classification of such laws whether we consider one side of nature or the other— You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it—& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.,,, in speculating upon organic descent, you over state the evidence of geology; & that you under state it while you are talking of the broken links of your natural pedigree:,,, Lastly then, I greatly dislike the concluding chapter,,, from the tone of triumphant confidence in which you appeal to the rising generation,, (i.e. Darwinism of the gaps),, (yet),, (if we are to trust the accumulated experience of human sense & the inferences of its logic) ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

Seversky, you then claim,

Neither does the claim that his theory was used to justify twentieth-century atrocities have any bearing on its scientific validity. Remember argumentum ad consequentiam?

Actually, contrary to what you falsely believe, the amorality inherent within atheistic materialism (i.e. blind pitiless indifference, Dawkins), and indeed the 'anti-morality' inherent within Darwin's theory itself when one couples the amorality inherent within atheistic materialism with Darwin's mechanism of 'survival of fittest', (i.e. red in tooth and claw, Dawkins), does falsify the validity of Darwin's theory. Morally noble altruistic behavior of any type is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’, i.e. red in tooth and claw, theory.

“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

If evolution by natural selection were actually the truth about how all life came to be on Earth then the only life that should be around should be extremely small organisms with the highest replication rate, and with the most ‘mutational firepower’, since only they, (since they greatly outclass multi-cellular organism in terms of ‘reproductive success’ and ‘mutational firepower’), would be fittest to survive in the dog eat dog world where blind pitiless evolution ruled and only the fittest are allowed to survive. The logic of this is nicely summed up here in this following Richard Dawkins’ video:

Richard Dawkins interview with a ‘Darwinian’ physician goes off track – video Excerpt: “I am amazed, Richard, that what we call metazoans, multi-celled organisms, have actually been able to evolve, and the reason [for amazement] is that bacteria and viruses replicate so quickly — a few hours sometimes, they can reproduce themselves — that they can evolve very, very quickly. And we’re stuck with twenty years at least between generations. How is it that we resist infection when they can evolve so quickly to find ways around our defenses?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/video_to_dawkin062031.html

In other words, since successful reproduction is all that really matters on a neo-Darwinian view of things, how can anything but successful, and highly efficient reproduction, be realistically ‘selected’ for? Darwin himself stated, “every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;”

“every single organic being around us may be said to be striving to the utmost to increase in numbers;” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species – pg. 66

The logic of natural selection is nicely and simply illustrated on the following graph:

The Logic of Natural Selection – graph http://recticulatedgiraffe.weebly.com/uploads/4/0/6/2/40627097/1189735.jpg?308

As you can see, any other function besides successful reproduction, such as much slower sexual reproduction, sight, hearing, abstract thinking, and especially altruistic behavior (such as grandmothers spoiling their grandkids), would be highly superfluous to the primary criteria of successful reproduction, and should, on a Darwinian view, be discarded, and/or ‘eaten’, by bacteria, as so much excess baggage since it obviously would slow down successful reproduction. Yet, contrary to this central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, instead of eating us, time after time we find micro-organisms helping each other, and us, in ways that have nothing to with their own ‘survival of the fittest’’ concerns. The following researchers said they were ‘banging our heads against the wall’ by the contradictory findings to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking that they had found:

Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists – April 28, 2014 Excerpt: One of Charles Darwin’s hypotheses posits that closely related species will compete for food and other resources more strongly with one another than with distant relatives, because they occupy similar ecological niches. Most biologists long have accepted this to be true. Thus, three researchers were more than a little shaken to find that their experiments on fresh water green algae failed to support Darwin’s theory — at least in one case. “It was completely unexpected,” says Bradley Cardinale, associate professor in the University of Michigan’s school of natural resources & environment. “When we saw the results, we said ‘this can’t be.”‘ We sat there banging our heads against the wall. Darwin’s hypothesis has been with us for so long, how can it not be right?” The researchers ,,,— were so uncomfortable with their results that they spent the next several months trying to disprove their own work. But the research held up.,,, The scientists did not set out to disprove Darwin, but, in fact, to learn more about the genetic and ecological uniqueness of fresh water green algae so they could provide conservationists with useful data for decision-making. “We went into it assuming Darwin to be right, and expecting to come up with some real numbers for conservationists,” Cardinale says. “When we started coming up with numbers that showed he wasn’t right, we were completely baffled.”,,, Darwin “was obsessed with competition,” Cardinale says. “He assumed the whole world was composed of species competing with each other, but we found that one-third of the species of algae we studied actually like each other. They don’t grow as well unless you put them with another species. It may be that nature has a heck of a lot more mutualisms than we ever expected. “,,, Maybe Darwin’s presumption that the world may be dominated by competition is wrong.” http://www.livescience.com/45205-data-dont-back-up-darwin-in-algae-study-nsf-bts.html

And again, directly contrary to the central ‘survival of the fittest’ assumption of Darwinian evolution, we find that bacteria are also directly helping us in essential ways that have nothing to do with their own survival of the fittest concerns:

NIH Human Microbiome Project defines normal bacterial makeup of the body – June 13, 2012 Excerpt: Microbes inhabit just about every part of the human body, living on the skin, in the gut, and up the nose. Sometimes they cause sickness, but most of the time, microorganisms live in harmony with their human hosts, providing vital functions essential for human survival. http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2012/nhgri-13.htm We are living in a bacterial world, and it’s impacting us more than previously thought – February 15, 2013 Excerpt: We often associate bacteria with disease-causing “germs” or pathogens, and bacteria are responsible for many diseases, such as tuberculosis, bubonic plague, and MRSA infections. But bacteria do many good things, too, and the recent research underlines the fact that animal life would not be the same without them.,,, I am,, convinced that the number of beneficial microbes, even very necessary microbes, is much, much greater than the number of pathogens.” http://phys.org/news/2013-02-bacterial-world-impacting-previously-thought.html#ajTabs

Moreover, it is now known that “Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides.”

The Microbial Engines That Drive Earth’s Biogeochemical Cycles – Paul G. Falkowski – 2008 Excerpt: Microbial life can easily live without us; we, however, cannot survive without the global catalysis and environmental transformations it provides. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.474.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf – Paul G. Falkowski is Professor Geological Sciences at Rutgers

In fact, Darwin himself offered this following ‘anti-altruism’ standard as a falsification criteria for his theory, “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species”… and even stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”

“Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species; though throughout nature one species incessantly takes advantage of, and profits by, the structure of another. But natural selection can and does often produce structures for the direct injury of other species, as we see in the fang of the adder, and in the ovipositor of the ichneumon, by which its eggs are deposited in the living bodies of other insects. If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” – Charles Darwin – Origin of Species http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1866/1866-241-c-1859.html

And yet, directly contrary to Darwin’s claim that “Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in any one species exclusively for the good of another species” or it would annihilate his theory, it is now known that " “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it."

Plant Galls and Evolution How More than Twelve Thousand1 Ugly Facts are Slaying a Beautiful Hypothesis: Darwinism2 Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig – 7 September 2017 Excerpt: in the case of the galls, in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it. The galls are not ‘useful to the possessor’, the plants. There is no space for these phenomena in the world of “the selfish gene” (Dawkins). Moreover, the same conclusion appears to be true for thousands of angiosperm species producing deceptive flowers (in contrast to gall formations, now for the exclusive good of the plant species) – a topic which should be carefully treated in another paper. http://www.weloennig.de/PlantGalls.pdf

bornagain77

Bornagain77 @ 14

Darwin may well have been an abolitionist, but his supposed ‘scientific’ theory did more to promote inequality between races and classes than anything else in the 20th century. Hundreds of millions of deaths speak for itself

Darwin was not responsible for whatever purposes his theory may have been perverted to serve after his death. Neither does the claim that his theory was used to justify twentieth-century atrocities have any bearing on its scientific validity. Remember argumentum ad consequentiam?

That you would dare try to defend such a position is insane.

Which position are you referring to?

That Darwin’s theory is completely false makes it all the more insane for you to do.

Darwin's theory is not false but it's now recognized as being only part of the picture. There is more to evolution than just natural selection

Seversky, perhaps you should also realize that Lincoln became much more anti-slavery as his Christian faith greatly deepened while he was in his presidency following the death of his son.

Lincoln's anti-slavery views are well-established by a large body of documentary evidence. One passage lifted out of context is not sufficient to overturn all that. Just as that one passage from Descent lifted out of context does not represent Darwin's position. Cherry-picking quotes and lifting them out of context, because they support your religious or political views, is dishonest if they do not fairly represent the author's views. Seversky

Darwin may well have been an abolitionist, but his supposed 'scientific' theory did more to promote inequality between races and classes than anything else in the 20th century. Hundreds of millions of deaths speak for itself. That you would dare try to defend such a position is insane. That Darwin's theory is completely false makes it all the more insane for you to do. Seversky, perhaps you should also realize that Lincoln became much more anti-slavery as his Christian faith greatly deepened while he was in his presidency following the death of his son.

“I have been driven many times upon my knees by the overwhelming conviction that I had no where else to go. My own wisdom and that of all about me seemed insufficient for that day.” - Abraham Lincoln

bornagain77

What a piece of racist diatribe is Hunt’s “On the Negro’s Place in Nature”.

We agree there – so does Huxley who describes the book as “the preposterous ignorance, exaggeration, and misstatement in which the slave-holding interest indulges.”

I can not find one dime’s worth of difference as far as racism is concerned between Darwin and Hunt’s view of Africans

Well, anyone familiar with Darwin’s position would have no problem pointing out numerous differences between Hunt and Darwin’s position on nearly every page. The whole point of the book was to counter Darwin’s conception of human races and the relationship between the races. That’s why the book’s title was a play on the title of the (then) only Darwinian book on human evolution. Yet you seem to think that abolitionism is “worth a dime’s of difference” to Hunt – you do realize that Darwin was an abolitionist, right? goodusername

Bornagain77 @ 10

What a piece of racist diatribe is Hunt’s “On the Negro’s Place in Nature”

Yes, it is and not uncommon at that time.

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 (18. ‘Anthropological Review,’ April 1867, p. 236.), 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

Like I said, not one dimes worth of difference

Darwin was predicting what he thought might happen to the non-European races and apes. Not unreasonable given the way the way native peoples were being treated at that time by (mostly Christian) European colonists in the Americas, Africa, Australia and New Zealand. But there's nothing there to say that he approved of what was happening.

Now compare that to Wilberforce’s Christian view of slavery prior to when Darwin and Hunt came along,

Is it necessary to point out yet again that Darwin was an ardent abolitionist? A position that's hard to square with your interpretation of that passage from Descent.

As well Abraham Lincoln’s own view of slavery was based on Christian principles.

You mean when he said this in the fourth debate with Steven Douglas at Charleston, IL in 1858?

t. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Would you call Lincoln a racist on the basis of that passage? Seversky

Goodusername: Strange, I’ve always hearing from Creationists and ID proponents, etc, that no one, not even Young Earth Creationists, deny “survival of the fittest” or natural selection – it’s only macro-evolution that they don’t believe. Adaptation is the result of a genetically programmed mechanism in all species. It calls for neither inferiority nor superiority. And it does not necessarily need selection. It can happen while the organism is still alive. In fact, growing up from childhood to adulthood is a form of adaptation. Are children inferior to adults? Of course not. FourFaces

What a piece of racist diatribe is Hunt's "On the Negro's Place in Nature". I can not find one dime's worth of difference as far as racism is concerned between Darwin and Hunt's view of Africans:

On the Negro's Place in Nature https://www.jstor.org/stable/3025197?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Compared to

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 (18. 'Anthropological Review,' April 1867, p. 236.), 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

Like I said, not one dimes worth of difference Now compare that to Wilberforce's Christian view of slavery prior to when Darwin and Hunt came along,

Wilberforce and the Roots of Freedom Excerpt: The son of a wealthy merchant, young Wilberforce led the hedonistic lifestyle of a college student at Cambridge. Bored with his father’s business, he entered Parliament at age 21 and made friends easily. Five years later, he had a conversion experience leading him to devote his life to freeing those in bondage. In 1791, his bill to abolish the slave trade failed by a wide margin but he persisted. In 1807, Wilberforce released A Letter on the Abolition of the Slave Trade on the eve of Parliament’s overwhelming vote to end the trade in human beings—a remarkable change in fifteen years. In 1823, “God’s politician” began a ten-year campaign to end slavery entirely, releasing his Appeal to the Religion, Justice and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire in Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies, in which he claimed that total and unqualified emancipation was a moral and ethical “duty before God.” Wilberforce died in 1833 just as Parliament abolished slavery. His friend John Newton, once one of the cruelest of slave traders, later in life went through a similar “born again” experience and wrote the famous song “Amazing Grace”—hence the title of the movie about Wilberforce’s awe-inspiring campaign against slavery. http://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=1929 “God Almighty has set before me two Great Objects: the supression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners.” - William Wilberforce - (1759 –1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade - author of Real Christianity

As well Abraham Lincoln's own view of slavery was based on Christian principles.

we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." - Lincoln https://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

bornagain77

Four years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, James Hunt turned it into a justification for slavery. In his 1863 paper, “On the Negro’s Place in Nature,” he asserted: “Our Bristol and Liverpool merchants, perhaps, helped to benefit the race when they transported some of them to America.”

Hunt’s book was indeed pro-slavery, but it was also pro-polygenist - and opposed to evolution and Darwinism. The title of Hunt’s book should look familiar, it was written in opposition to T. H. Huxley’s 1863 pro-Darwinist work “Man’s Place in Nature.” That was the first book written on human evolution. (Darwin’s Descent of Man didn’t appear until 1871). Hunt and Huxley would go on to have one the most famous feuds of the decade. James Hunt was the president of the Anthropological Society of London, and most members were opposed to Darwinism. The rival society was the Ethnological Society of London, which Hunt mocked for being a “Darwinian club”. The Confederacy also (secretly) funded Hunt’s Anthropological Society. Why? Because many in the South believed that Darwin’s theory jeopardized the institution of slavery. goodusername

Darwin’s theory is inherently racist precisely because it calls for...

Scientific theories don't "call for" anything. Think that might be where you are going wong here... Mimus

Darwin’s theory is inherently racist precisely because it calls for the survival of the fittest, the selection mechanism that gives us new (superior) organisms that are more fit than the other (inferior) ones.

Strange, I've always hearing from Creationists and ID proponents, etc, that no one, not even Young Earth Creationists, deny "survival of the fittest" or natural selection - it's only macro-evolution that they don't believe. goodusername

Four faces

Darwin’s theory is inherently racist ...

And chemical theory is inherently genocidal because it was used to gas Jews during the holocaust. Brother Brian

Darwin's theory is inherently racist precisely because it calls for the survival of the fittest, the selection mechanism that gives us new (superior) organisms that are more fit than the other (inferior) ones. Any argument to the contrary goes directly into my trash can. Deny at your own detriment. The truth about homosexuality is that it is not selected at all. How could it? It either happens because of one or more (deleterious) mutations or it is a direct epigenetic result of environmental pressure (e.g., bad parenting and/or child abuse). One man's opinion, of course. FourFaces

Sev claims, "Darwin’s theory is not inherently racist..." Well actually it is inherently racist:

What Your Biology Teacher Didn’t Tell You About Charles Darwin - APRIL 19, 2017 Excerpt: The full title of his (Darwin's) 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. Thankfully, most British people today are embarrassed by the racist rhetoric that undergirded the late-Victorian British Empire. What’s astonishing is how little they understand that Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution provided the doctrine behind its white supremacism. Whereas the British Empire of the early 19th century had been dominated by Christian reformers such as William Wilberforce, who sold slave badges that proclaimed, “Am I not a man and a brother?”, Darwin’s writings converted an empire with a conscience into an empire with a scientific philosophy. Four years after Darwin published The Origin of Species, James Hunt turned it into a justification for slavery. In his 1863 paper, “On the Negro’s Place in Nature,” he asserted: “Our Bristol and Liverpool merchants, perhaps, helped to benefit the race when they transported some of them to America.” 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. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-your-biology-teacher-didnt-tell-you-about-charles-darwin/

Sev goes on to state,

"Darwin’s theory is not inherently racist but human beings clearly are. All of us. The sooner we accept that the seeds of racism are in all of us, regardless of race, color or creed. the sooner it can be dealt with."

Better watch out Seversky, you are getting very close to the Christian doctrine of 'original sin'. ,,, Even very close to admitting that an objective moral law really does exist.

“The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.” - Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Despite what Sev and other atheists such as Sam Harris may claim,,, Morally noble altruistic behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ theory.

Morally noble altruistic behavior of any sort is simply completely antithetical to Darwin’s ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/altruism-in-viruses/#comment-676752

Remember Seversky, Objective Morality can only be grounded within Theism. Atheistic materialism only allows morality to be subjective and illusory.

The Moral Argument – Dr. Craig video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU

,,, and I would further argue that the ‘noblest morality’ of all, to be found within any particular Theistic worldview, is clearly to be found within Christian Theism alone:

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. 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.

bornagain77

Darwin's theory is not inherently racist but human beings clearly are. All of us. The sooner we accept that the seeds of racism are in all of us, regardless of race, color or creed. the sooner it can be dealt with. Trying to offload responsibility on to something like Darwinism or liberalism or conservatism - whatever they mean - is discriminatory in itself. It says they're racist but we're not. But you are, because we all are to some degree. Maybe not blatantly or overtly, but if you look deep enough inside yourself you will find those seeds hidden away in some dark corner, waiting for the right conditions to germinate. As for homosexuality, only panadaptationsts insist that all observable traits exist because they confer some definite advantage on the organism. Pluralists recognize that traits that are largely neutral in effect - neither beneficial nor detrimental - can persist in a population because they are not harmful enough to be filtered out by selective pressures. Whether you approve or disapprove of homosexual behavior on religious or moral grounds is a different question.. Seversky

Maybe Bill Nye, the science guy, can chime in and explain to us why Darwinism is not inherently racist. What with the survival of the fittest and all that jazz. He might also want to explain to us the fitness of homosexuals for survival. After all, he's the science guy. FourFaces

No matter what the politics espoused, racism is implicit in the nature of Darwinism as a way of understanding human history.

No, racism is implicit in the ego-centric nature of humans. It sadly became inevitable the day we became self-aware. If you can show me a person who claims not to have any racist thoughts I will show you a liar. Thankfully, most of us are able to use our reasoning abilities to know that these thoughts are irrational. Brother Brian