Darwinists, just divorce racism. Get back to me when you have filed, okay …

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 11, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Just up at an earlier post at Uncommon Descent (comments box):

“Since ID is not a religious program, but a scientific one, I fail to see why an ID proponent needs comment what a religious organization does or doesn’t do. Evolution is all about science (or so we’re told), as such its founder clearly held racists views drawn directly from the science. If you have a similar connection between racism and ID, we’re all ears.” – Donald McL

Thank you, Donald! that is precisely my point.

I certainly do not hold myself responsible for everything anyone has ever done in the name of religion, simply because I am a Catholic Christian.

I have also never held any individual Darwinist responsible for everything anyone has done in the name of Darwinism.

But I am – at best – surprised by the lack of interest of science societies in backing away from Darwin’s racism.

It would be EASY to do.

I do not want to quarrel uselessly about this. I am simply asking all members of societies that have made statements supporting Darwin vs. intelligent design to FOLLOW UP with a formal statement *divorcing* Darwin’s racism.

Just divorce Descent of Man now! Just DO it!

Don’t tell me that you individually disagree with it. That means nothing in the current climate.

Now, if the Darwinists do not do it, won’t we know something useful?

I think we will know something very useful indeed.

I will be VERY happy to publicise any upcoming divorces from The Descent of Man!

Darwinist, do you or don’t you divorce this book?

I hope and pray you do. Look, I have friends and in-laws from across the globe, from all races and nations under heaven.

I want to reach across the ideological divide and ask you to use the “year of Darwin” to finally divorce racism.

And if you don’t, we will know.

We will definitely all know whether you did or not.

And most of us will not listen to you in the slightest until you do.

Just do it, okay?

Comments

Mark at #34, Your argument is with Clive, I simply pointed out that your argument in #28 is dumb and that you should have shown Clive that not even 2 aboriginals has been killed for science in those days. He made a claim and your counter claim will be worthless if you cannot substantiate it. The fact that I did read some where some time ago about science experiments on aboriginals is just as valid as your claim that you are "...not aware of a single case of an aboriginal being killed for “scientific” purposes. Do you know of any?" Shifting the burden of proof does nothing to resolve this argument. To help you I will be on the look out for a reference in this regards.mullerpr_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT}

KRiS, Your attempt to justify the argument from Christian atrocities miss the point completely and only throws Darwinism into a religious basket with Christianity. I know for one thing ID as an ideology never wants to share that basket with Darwinism and Christianity or any fallen state of human thought. At least ID strive to something better, as does Christianity. This challenge from Denyse is designed to redeem Darwinism from this "religious like" conduct. But if you want to keep that argument to defend Darwinism then you have to accept Darwinism as a "fallen theory" born from evil moral thoughts (...see the religious words?). The nice thing about Christianity is that it boldly acknowledge the fallen state of humans and supply all humans with a proven and effective way to redeem themselves and overcome evils like racism. As I mentioned in another thread. It was Christians like William Wilberforce that took the lead in abolishing slavery, because the fallen state of man corrupted it. If any secularist want to claim they are more successful at protecting all peoples' dignity and freedom, then I would beg them to proof their case in an African context. In conclusion... All arguments here supports the fact that Darwinism has to be counted in with religions like Christianity and not with science.mullerpr_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Re #32 mullerpr I think maybe you having me on. You can hardly be serious. You make an accusation based on something you read in some history book long. You give almost no information about who is accused, what they did or when they did it. Then you expect those you query your accusation to redeem themselves by calling the “Department of Aboriginal affairs in Australia” (in my case from the UK). If they fail to do this then the alternative is that the accusation is true. Guilty until proven innocent - I guess?Mark Frank_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

KRiS, Is this your own definition: "All living creatures (and races) are equally evolved since they have all survived to this day." Could you give me a reference from any of Darwins' writings that supports this view? Sorry my friend your sugar coat does not stick. Your adaptation spiel is very modern and would imply that people like the Australian aboriginals and the San people of Southern Africa is fare more advanced than the westerners if it comes to surviving in harsh climates. However in the Western environment the well adapted indigenous people tend to become very unstable to the extent that whole populations implode (think of the North American Indians). Heaven forbid a future where only the one human culture survives because evolution so decrees. Remember, culture create human environment and is a product of "human reason" and even though evolution is not very good at explaining anything, it is particularly bad when it want to explain "human reason".mullerpr_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
04:06 AM
4
04
06
AM
PDT}

As far as I know there are some receipts, signed by scientists, for orders placed on aboriginal corpses, but I have no reference for you. I read it in some history book long ago. I suppose someone here might be able to verify that for you or you can phone the "Department of Aboriginal affairs in Australia", they tend to keep track of these kind of thing. Let me know if you are redeemed or if it actually happened the way Clive stated the facts.mullerpr_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT}

Re #29 Mullerp - I was only asking hat he was talking about. I am not aware of a single case of an aboriginal being killed for "scientific" purposes. Do you know of any?Mark Frank_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden
Applied to human races, it stands to reason that some are more evolved than others.
You highlight the exact problem when you say that. It is not at all reasonable to say that Darwinism says that some creatures are more or less evolved than any other. All living creatures (and races) are equally evolved since they have all survived to this day. However, they can be considered to be better or worse adapted for the environment in which they live. If a creature is not as well adapted as another in it's environment, it is less likely to survive than it's better adapted counterpart. The problem of eugenics arises when someone comes to the conclusion that something is less likely to survive for whatever reason, and that it therefore should not survive. It takes the logical conclusion that something is less likely to survive and transforms it into the illogical conclusion that it must not survive and that it should be helped along in some way. This doesn't even begin to touch on the idea of how we should try and determine for ourselves how likely any creature is to survive. This is not a logical extension of Darwinism, but is in fact an illogical distortion of it. The same kind of problem plagues those who attempt to support racist views by utilizing the framework or Darwinism. The underlying assumption is that some creatures (or races) are "better evolved" than others, and that the other creatures/races deserve to be subjugated or eliminated because of this imagined superiority. Darwinism does not say that any creature is superior to any other creature in any way whatsoever, except in the short term sense that one creature can be better or worse adapted to it's environment than another. Even this doesn't imply any actual superiority of any kind, but only a higher likelihood of survival. And this can change in an instant so that something that was very well adapted to it's environment can suddenly find itself at an extreme disadvantage when the environment changes for whatever reason. Let me repeat so that you don't misunderstand. Eugenics and racism are based on the assumption that some creature or race is "more evolved" and therefore "superior" to all others, which is not a logical conclusion of Darwinism, but is a separate assumption altogether. This is all very well understood among Darwinists. It's so patently obvious to anyone who really understands evolution that it would be ridiculous to get every evolutionary scientist and organization together just to say so. Now, the reason that people bring up Christianity when replying to the accusations that you're throwing is because you argue exactly the same thing to justify the fact that you have not "apologized" for Christian atrocities at the same level that you demand of Darwinists. That is to say that slavery, racism, genocide, etc... in the name of Christianity are all distortions of Christianity, and do not follow from a proper reading of the Bible or a proper understanding of Christianity. This is exactly the same problem that plagues Darwinism, and yet you choose to pretend that Christianity is justified in claiming this, while Darwinism is not.KRiS_Censored_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Sorry Mark, Why would you like to read into "killing of Australian aboriginals", ..."eliminate" the whole aboriginal population? This statement clearly implies that at least two (...plural - aboriginals) were killed just to be studied by Darwinian scientists. Your argument is a feeble attempt and shows a lack of character from someone in the wrong. (The only thing you are doing wrong is to defend Darwinisms' foundations.) If killing two for science is not just as bad as trying to wipe out a whole population, then your moral compass is certainly not fixed on anything worth trusting. To redeem yourself and Darwinian science just have to proof to us all that not even 2 aboriginals were killed JUST to be anatomically studied.mullerpr_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
03:10 AM
3
03
10
AM
PDT}

"We should also remember the killing of Australian aboriginals during the early part of the 20th century by Darwinian scientists" - Wow citation please. Also wasn't the Baptist churches belief that the Negros were the decendants of Ham (and thus damned) was used as the Biblical justification for slavery. I think that the definition on this blog about who is a Christian is shrinking rapidlymandy_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
03:07 AM
3
03
07
AM
PDT}

Clive "Applied to human races, it stands to reason that some are more evolved than others." What do you mean by "more evolved"?GSV_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:21 AM
2
02
21
AM
PDT}

Clive #25 We should also remember the killing of Australian aboriginals during the early part of the 20th century by Darwinian scientists who believed that they were missing links between apes and humans, and less than human and more than ape. What are you talking about? Gun-toting Darwinian scientists rushing out of the lab to eliminate what they believe to be living evidence of the link between ape and man.Mark Frank_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:12 AM
1
01
12
AM
PDT}

I can see between the lines that this discussion is making it clear that materialistic science has very little to offer when it comes to the essence of being human, having a consciousness and acting moral. The moment materialists ventures beyond its logical bounds (i.e. when materialists start reasoning about reason) they make a mess of interpreting the artifacts of all conscious labors, (i.e. materialistic (including Darwinian) science has no place for design, which is part of the essential human nature.)mullerpr_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
12:55 AM
12
12
55
AM
PDT}

Denyse,
I do not want to quarrel uselessly about this.
I kind of think you do.
I am simply asking all members of societies that have made statements supporting Darwin vs. intelligent design to FOLLOW UP with a formal statement *divorcing* Darwin’s racism.
That would suggest that all members of such societies care what you want.
Now, if the Darwinists do not do it, won’t we know something useful? I think we will know something very useful indeed.
What we will know is how seriously such socities take an ultimatum from you. Nothing more. Clive, I'm sorry if this seems "disrepsectful." But there's nothing remotely respectful about Denyse's posts on this topic.David Kellogg_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

Allen, The difference, that is being overlooked, is that Darwinian evolution is inherently a system that determines evolution only against others. It's a comparative endeavor. If there were nothing to compare, there would be no ability to show any differences, and thus no evolution or progression from one thing to another. Applied to human races, it stands to reason that some are more evolved than others. However, the same cannot be said about the very system of Christianity, for there are only two races, the race of the first Adam, (those who are not regenerate) and the race of the second Adam (those who are washed by the Blood). And we are in the New Testament now, in which there is no such things as even the Jew or Gentile, male or female in Christ. The point is that any Christian who regarded racism as true did it IN SPITE of Christianity--not in accord with it. According to scripture, everyone can from Adam and Eve. However, Those who see differences between races have acted in accordance with Darwinian evolution, which is inherently a comparative endeavor to even discern evolution in action. We should also remember the killing of Australian aboriginals during the early part of the 20th century by Darwinian scientists who believed that they were missing links between apes and humans, and less than human and more than ape.Clive Hayden_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

I must say that it is very telling that Denyse's request to divorce "Descent of Man" is met with a full blown skeptic's attack on the Bible as an counter argument. Why would any Darwinist try to protect their sacred books from criticism by comparing it to a religious book? I took part in the discussions regarding the morality of the Bible, that was mentioned here. It came from a thread called" "We cannot live by skepticism alone". Anyone who like to measure the full strength of the skeptic arguments can go and read them on that thread. Especially notice the clear philosophical description of the skeptics irrational behavior, followed by the most beautiful examples of this behavior from the skeptic proponents themselves. With this said, I just like to endorse Denyse's request, so we can once and for all get science to be accountable for the social impact it has. I despise Darwinist science for having the audacity to create a "scientific justification" for something like racism, eugenics, infanticide and the list goes on and on... I also despise the relativist and skeptic that conjure up his or her own concoction of reality and tries to force it down the throat of unsuspecting onlookers. In this same fashion I like to reiterate to George L Farquhar that ...scream as you like, the Bible does provide a complete picture of the objective truths that successfully guided the great Western Civilization for centuries and is proven far more valuable than any scientific notions regarding social constructs. (Just measure the track record of your Oh... so precious Darwinist science's influence in society.) P.S. Do you people think we can blame "Darwin's doubt" for fueling post-modern thinking as well?mullerpr_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT}

George, "A student of history you are not Madam." Apologize to Denyse.Clive Hayden_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

I going to disapprove your 1st comment Seversky, I cannot allow such language about God being worse than Hitler or Stalin.Clive Hayden_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:38 PM
10
10
38
PM
PDT}

I certainly do not hold myself responsible for everything anyone has ever done in the name of religion, simply because I am a Catholic Christian.
Thus, you would subscribe the following:
The same is true of the numerous stupid and clumsy attacks on Christianity. Remarks such as "Christianity has done nothing but harm" prove only that the person who makes the remark has no tact. It is easy to criticize the political church; and even the most devout Christians condemn the atrocities committed in the name of the cross during the Inquisition and Witch Trials. But one cannot blame the mistakes and perversions of individuals on one of the most powerful institutions of mankind. For untold millions, the Christian religion has meant hope and spiritual elevation that transported them beyond human suffering to God. The entire culture of the Middle Ages was inspired by the sign of the Cross. The heroic deeds, self sacrifice, fervour and courage of faith all had their roots in Christianity. One must always distinguish between the, spiritual nucleus of Christianity and the distortions of its secular manifestations.
Would you?sparc_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PDT}

Can you find anyone from Darwin's era that wasn't a racist in this sense? Wasn't it the biologists that have shown there's no such thing as the concept of biological race in the human species?Fross_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:01 PM
10
10
01
PM
PDT}

Timeaus You're right. Xenocide doesn't describe God's judgement very well. He basically killed almost all of his children. Filicide is the correct term but doesn't really convey the magnitude of the atrocity since it doesn't imply killing one's children by the millions.DaveScot_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:00 PM
10
10
00
PM
PDT}

Mr. MacNeil, "she and the ID movement" A rather large brush you're using there. Let's keep this personal. O'Leary doesn't speak for all of us.DaveScot_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

This sounds like a "boy we got 'em we got 'em" argument. However, it is silly and childish. Whether the modern theory of evolution is right or not is in no way based on whether darwin was a racist, or whether the scientific community acknowledges it or not. If all of the scientists get together and in one loud voice declare their rejection of Darwin's racism, because Ms. O'Leary has requested it, the debate that this forum is about will in no way be impacted. This is a very ineffective "gotcha".bFast_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill: Thanks for your information on "xenocide". It's a clever and even reasonable coinage. (And since my name is "Timaeus" I didn't even need the translation of the Greek root.) However, I'm not sure why a word dreamed up by a science fiction writer as recently as 1991 has to be accepted by everyone as standard English. "Xenocide" works well in the case of, say, human beings wiping out dodo birds, because we are a species, and dodo birds are an "other" species. But it's a bit awkward to use "xenocide" for God's wiping out man in the Flood, because, while man is a species, God is not, so man can't really be said to be an "other" species in relation to God. So I'll stick with my own clever coinage of "anthropicide", which would apply whenever anyone (God or space aliens, heh, heh) wipes out the human race. By the way, since I have your attention directly here, I was surprised when you discontinued our earlier meaty and civilized conversation, and didn't resume even when other UD posters (with no prompting from me) asked you to. It would be presumptuous of me to suppose that the reason you withdrew was that I had refuted all your arguments, so I infer that you simply found the exchange boring. In that case, I apologize for failing to keep up your interest. T.Timaeus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

BTW, the term for annihilating an entire species is xenocide: Xenocide ("zeen-oh-side" alt. "zehn-oh-side") From Greek xenos "other" and Latin <cidium "the act of killing". 1. The complete annihilation of a species, either by a person or a group. Coined by Mormon science fiction writer, Orson Scott Card, in his 1991 novel Xenocide.Allen_MacNeill_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT}

Seversky (#1): "Eugenics is a form of directed evolution in which a favored ‘race’ is ‘encouraged’ to propagate at the expense of less-favored races which are allowed to dwindle away to extinction as they lose the competition for resources or are actively eliminated." "Eugenics" is a euphemism for "white superiority." R.A. Fisher, the so called greatest scientist since Darwin, a man who had no degree in biology or any degree higher than a four year degree, was Professor of Eugenics. The so called "evidence of evolution" gave powerful white men in science the "facts" to justify their pre-existing white superiority beliefs. Recently Darwinian micro-biologist and Nobel winner, James Watson, got caught spewing "we are more intelligent than Africans" KKK idiocy. The only surprise is that he got caught. RayR. Martinez_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT}

DaveScot wrote: Denyse, Speaking of influential books and divorcing oneself from the unsavory views of their authors do you divorce yourself from the racism, brutality, slavery, and misogynism found in the old testament? People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. More to the point, just as she demands "darwinian organisations" (rather than individuals) to distance themselves from Darwin, she should insist on the Catholic church divorcing itself from these things.Hoki_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

DaveScot (#6): "Speaking of influential books and divorcing oneself from the unsavory views of their authors do you divorce yourself from the racism, brutality, slavery, and misogynism found in the old testament? People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones." The Bible reports brutality, slavery, and other nefarious deeds of human beings---it does not condone them. You now have no point. We know in 1837 and 1838, that is, twenty years before Darwin published, he rejected the Bible (Autobio:85-87). THEN he "noticed" that apes in the London zoo resembled dark skinned peoples that he had encountered on the previous five year Beagle voyage (Edward Larson, "Evolution: The History Of A Remarkable Theory" 2004:66-67). The point is, AFTER God is rejected as creator of mankind, Charles Darwin relied upon his pre-existing racism to answer a question about human origins that did not exist before. Charles Darwin: "Nearly all will exclaim, your arguments are good but look at the immense difference. between man, —forget the use of language, & judge only by what you see. compare, the Fuegian & Ourang & outang, & dare to say difference so great" (Notebook M, 1838:153). Human evolution was born in Darwin's racist mind. This is what happens when the Genesis Creator is rejected as maker of Adamkind. According to MIT Professor Huston Smith: “In 1919 the Brooklyn Zoo exhibited an African American caged alongside chimpanzees and gorillas” (”Why Religion Matters” 2001:17). And we had been told since Darwin published "Descent Of Man" in 1871 that human evolution was based on evidence. The evidence says human evolution was based on gutter racism. As for the Bible and Christianity: Joseph married Pharaoh's daughter; the birthright children, Ephraim and Manasseh, were half African. Moses married an Ethiopian woman. The O.T makes a huge deal of the fact that Naaman the Syrian got healed by God while lepers in Israel did not. St. Mark was the Bishop at Alexandria. The Ethiopian eunuch was converted by an original Apostle in the Book of Acts. The origins of Christianity embraced dark skinned peoples as did Judaism. The origin of Darwinism, as we have seen, was based in gutter racism (dark skinned peoples "resembling" apes). RayR. Martinez_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT}

O’Leary has now posted her “Darwinists, just divorce racism” screed a half-dozen times, with hardly any modifications and virtually no real acknowledgment that many national and international organizations of scientists and evolutionary biologists have indeed repudiated both racism and eugenics on multiple occasions. Interesting isn’t it, that I can give her multiple examples of exactly what she wanted to see, but that’s apparently not even enough for her to deign to mention them. Why not? There’s a well-known rhetorical gambit known as the “Have you stopped beating your grandmother yet?” ploy. O’Leary’s version of this tactic stands as the title of this thread. Since she has pointedly ignored any evidence that evolutionary biologists have done precisely what she has called for, then the obvious conclusion is that this isn’t really what she wants. What she’s really saying is “All Darwinists are racists” and the proof for this assertion (according to O’Leary) is that evolutionary biologists (notice that she puts this in quotes – “evolutionary biologists” – so that you’ll all understand that what she’s really saying is “racist Darwinists”) haven’t yet publicly “repudiated Darwin”. O’Leary is apparently well-trained in this kind of propaganda. She’s not just calling for “evolutionary biologists” to repudiate the racism in Darwin’s Descent of Man, she’s calling for them to repudiate the entire book, and indeed all of Darwin’s ideas. Here’s the game: If “Darwinists” want to really repudiate the racism in The Descent of Man, they must repudiate all of Darwin’s work. And many of the pro-ID commentators on this thread have taken her hint and made exactly this assertion. Never mind that what is currently practiced by evolutionary biologists bears only a passing historical resemblance to Darwin’s original theories. Never mind that many individual evolutionary biologists and national scientific associations have repudiated both racism and eugenics. Never mind that I have repeatedly provided documentary evidence for precisely what she says she’s looking for. Never mind, because that isn’t really the point. The point is clearly character assassination, guilt by association, and ad hominem argument. And, just as clearly, this switch in tactics away from arguing about the current scientific merit of ID and toward books written a century and a half ago indicates to me that she and the ID movement haven’t been getting enough attention lately. Time to “reframe” the argument away from science and toward politics. O’Leary seems to find nothing disingenuous about posting the same things over and over and over and over and over again, hoping that if she makes the same forced connection between Darwin’s views and modern evolutionary biology someone will believe it. And she keeps reposting the same ad hominem arguments without responding to documentary evidence of precisely the kind of public repudiation of racism by evolutionary biologists that she is supposedly seeking. And so (as promised) here is my response, slightly modified and updated from last time. So long as O’Leary keeps ignoring it and strongly insinuating that all evolutionary biologists are racists, I’ll keep posting documentary proof that shows that she’s either misinformed, a very slow learner, or deliberately distorting the facts: At this year’s Darwin Bicentennial Celebration at Cornell the department of ecology and evolutionary biology co-sponsored a panel discussion on “Evolution and Racism”. All four of the panelists, two of whom were African Americans (three were evolutionary biologists and one was a sociologist) agreed that by today’s standards Darwin and most of his contemporaries were racists. And they also pointed out that evolutionary biologists today – people like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Will Provine, and Robert Trivers – are among the strongest and most vocal opponents of racism, especially “scientific racism”. You can read about it here: http://www.google.com/calendar/event?eid=YjRlMHB0bWR2Z3EwNzE0YnFhN2tqdjVqYWcgbXVzZXVtb2Z0aGVlYXJ0aEBt&ctz=America/New_York Two years ago I served on a panel at the Cornell Darwin Day Celebration that dealt with “Evolution and Eugenics”. All four of the panelists (three evolutionary biologists and a Tallman Prize winner) agreed that Darwin’s ideas were used by eugenicists to justify their heinous policies. They also pointed out that prominent evolutionary biologists were among the members of the UNESCO panel that issued the United Nations’ 1950 statement on eugenics and race, which condemned both in the strongest of terms, and that virtually no evolutionary biologist has actively supported eugenics since 1945. You can read about it here: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Feb07/Darwin.lgk.html Now admittedly, the department of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell is not “a world association of evolutionary biologists”. However, it is widely recognized as one of the premier institutions of its kind in the world. We’ve done what O’Leary has asked for. Why hasn’t she acknowledged this? How about this statement: “The simple fact remains: there is no “inferior” race; the genetic differences between races are trivial.” This statement comes from the National Center for Science Education, as part of a report on “Racism and the Public’s Perception of Evolution”, available online here: http://ncseweb.org/rncse/22/3/racism-publics-perception-evolution (paragraph 31, second sentence) Even ID supporters might be willing to admit that the NCSE is a “world-recognized organization of evolutionary biologists”. After all, they complain about the immense political power of the NCSE, and the fact that virtually all evolutionary biologists agree with their organization’s views, including the one quoted above. Seems pretty definitive to me. Apparently not so to O’Leary. Why not? There have also been multiple sessions at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meetings on this and related subjects, which have condemned the use of evolutionary biology to support racism. Last, but not least, one could also read The Mismeasure of Man, perhaps the strongest indictment of “scientific racism” published in the second half of the 20th century, by Stephen Jay Gould, one of the premier evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, and a tireless opponent of racism and the perversion of evolutionary science for political means. I made a prediction last time: none of these will satisfy O’Leary, because her demand is not made with the expectation that there will be any evidence to the contrary. No, her demand is that some unspecified “world association of evolutionary biologists” make a “public retraction of Charles Darwin’s views”, which would, of course, include his theory of evolution. And lo and behold, O’Leary has done precisely what I predicted she would do. She has ignored any and all evidence that evolutionary biologists have done precisely what she claimed she wants us to do, and continued to demand that “Darwinists, just divorce racism”. Yes, it’s usually the case that ID supporters pointedly ignore any and all evidence that evolutionary biology might actually have a valid explanation for the evolution of life on Earth. And it’s also the case that many of the commentators at this website very clearly haven’t gotten the memo that ID isn’t about denying evolutionary explanations, it’s about a different theory of evolution, one in which the Intelligent Designer “guides” evolution to places where it couldn’t get on its own. But to me it’s very telling that O’Leary very pointedly ignores any and all evidence that “Darwinists”, both individually and collectively, have repudiated racism and eugenics, on multiple occasions. So, here you go, O’Leary. In the interests of honest debate and intellectual integrity, we expect you to call for all of the religious organizations that have opposed Darwin’s scientific theories to do the same thing you demand of evolutionary biologists. That is, publicly retract their previous support for racism, based on their religious views. You can start with these: • William Bell Riley - who founded the World Christian Fundamentals Association and sent William Jennings Bryan to Dayton, Tennessee in 1925 to prosecute John T. Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of Tennessee’s Butler Act- advocated white supremacy as well as a ban on the teaching of evolution. • Evangelist Billy Sunday endorsed the Klan Kreed of white supremacy and bitterly attacked evolution. • Early in the 20th century, Bob Jones Sr’s revivals were supported financially by the Ku Klux Klan. Later, as most religious denominations in the US denounced the Klan, Southern Baptists - whose denomination was organized in 1845 as a haven for pro-slavery Baptists - were “unanimously silent on the question of the Klan” Southern Baptists opposed not only integration and other antiracist efforts, but also the teaching of evolution, denouncing Darwinism as “a soul-destroying, Bible-destroying, and God-dishonoring theory”. Sound familiar? • Bob Jones University, founded by Bob Jones Sr. in 1927 (two years after the Scopes trial) as “a college with high academic standards; an emphasis on culture; and a down-to-earth, practical Christian philosophy of self-control that was both orthodox and fervent in its evangelistic spirit”. Until a massive public-relations problem forced the university to reconsider its policy in 2000, it prohibited interracial dating, which was viewed as “playing into the hand of the Antichrist” by defying God’s will regarding God-made differences among the races. • For over a century the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) justified their racist discrimination against non-whites on their theology, and also opposed evolutionary theory as being both wrong and productive of anti-Christian values and behavior. Recently their racist practices have been toned down, but not as a result of a repudiation of their former theological positions, but rather on the basis of “new revelations”, tempered by political expedience. I can keep this up as long as you can, O’Leary, and if you continue to avoid my questions it will eventually occur to even the most biased readers of this blog that perhaps you aren’t really interested in “truth”, but simply scoring propaganda points.Allen_MacNeill_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT}

Seversky: “Genocide” refers to the selective destruction of one race or ethnic group, solely because it is the race or ethnic group that it is. In genocide, all members of the target group are eliminated, regardless of their individual track records of honesty, courage, charity, industry, kindness to members of other ethnic groups, etc. The Noah story relates a destruction of the entire human species, not of any race or ethnic group within it, and therefore is not a story of genocide, as that term is normally used. (It could be called a story of “anthropicide” or “hominicide”, I suppose.) But that’s a merely terminological objection. What’s more important is that in the Noah story, Noah is preserved because of his righteousness, not because of his “race”; and the rest of humanity (other than Noah, his sons and their wives) is wiped out because it is wholly evil, not because of its “race”. Thus, the term “genocide” (which indicates an indiscriminate destruction of a race or ethnic group, carried out without consideration for the moral qualities of individuals within the group) is inapplicable to the Noah story. Even when ethnicity might seem to be a factor in the various destructions of peoples recorded in Old Testament stories, closer examination shows that it is not. For example, Pharaoh and his army are destroyed in the Red Sea because they are determined, against the express command of God, to keep Israel captive, not because they are of the Egyptian “race”. Again, if we take the reason given by the Bible at face value, the Canaanites are destroyed because of their immorality and wickedness, not because their ethnicity differs from that of Israel. Similarly, Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed explicitly because of their wicked ways, not because their citizens are from a different race than that of Abraham and Lot. The election of Israel by God is not based on any alleged biological superiority of the Israelites (in terms of intelligence, strength, health, beauty, talent, etc.) over other peoples such as the Persians, Philistines, Egyptians, Africans, Syrians, Greeks, or Romans. It is based entirely on Israel’s projected willingness (albeit frequently accompanied by stubborn non-compliance and examples of apostasy) to live in accord with the laws and ways that God requires. The election of Israel has nothing to do with “race” as Darwin and his contemporaries understood it, or as the eugenics movement understood it, or as Hitler and his “Aryan” Nazis understood it. In sum, the Old Testament doesn’t teach any doctrine of racial superiority, anywhere that I’m aware of. Insofar as it gives a special place to Israel, that place is not based on Israel’s ethnicity. Thus, you are misapplying the texts. You are interpreting spiritual teachings in a carnal way. Further, you incorrectly equate the stories of the Old Testament with Christianity itself. The Old Testament stories are only a part of Christianity, and many of them are not particularly important for Christian theology and have been largely ignored by Christian writers over the centuries. Further, many of the Old Testament stories which are deemed important for Christianity have been re-interpreted by the Christian Church to harmonize them with the teaching of the New Testament. But most important for the present discussion is that you completely miss the crucial change between the Old Testament focus and the Christian one: the Old Testament stories are focused on Israel, which is a national entity (in the original sense of the word “national”, i.e., ethnic), whereas Christianity is focused on the Church, which is a trans-national (i.e., trans-ethnic) entity. So even if the Old Testament taught the biological superiority of Israel as a national or ethnic group (which it doesn’t), it wouldn’t matter, because the Church is not tied to Israel’s national or ethnic identity at all. The death-blow to that tie between religion and ethnicity was dealt by the teaching of Paul that the Gentiles (which just means the other “nations” or “ethnicities”) could adopt Christianity without having to adopt any part of the Jewish Law. A Nigerian or an Irishman could become just as fully Christian as a Jew could. Of course, you have every right to reject various stories in the Bible that you find morally unacceptable, if that’s what you want to do. For example, you can reject the justification given in the Bible for the slaughter of the Canaanites. You can argue that Israel is guilty of the mass murder of innocent civilians and children, and that the divine justification for this action was dreamed up by chauvinistic Israelite writers and is morally unacceptable. That’s up to you. But it’s one thing to disagree with what the story teaches, and another thing to claim that it teaches something that it doesn’t. It appears to teach that the Canaanites were rightfully exterminated because of the moral and religious abominations that they practiced. It does not teach that they were rightfully exterminated because they were of inferior biological stock to the Israelites. P.S. There are many Christians who are deeply troubled by the Biblical justification of the slaughter of Canaanite non-combatants and children, and who have explicitly distanced themselves from it. I don’t know if Denyse is one of those; she can speak for herself. But if she is one of those, she is far from being alone. T.Timaeus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT}

Exodus 21:20-21 If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.critter_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply