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

George
Oh yeah, I forgot. This seems relevant Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?
No, it isn't relevant at all for the reasons I just stated to Seversky.DonaldM_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

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.DaveScot_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Seversky
Intelligent design must also be a form of directed evolution if the Designer does anything other than allow natural selection to follow its course. However if, as must happen in the case of design, the Designer arranges things so that the course of evolution is shaped or directed towards a chosen end, in other words, if the Designer for whatever reason has chosen to favor the survival of one ‘race’ over all the others, then that Designer and the Intelligent Design program itself are both eugenicist and racist by definition.... To put it bluntly, Christianity, from that perspective, is a racist and eugenicist program.
This argument might work if this perspective on Christianity were even close to accurate, but it really isn't. But, it also beside the point. Evolution qua evolution is a scientific research program. So is ID. Regardless of one's interpretation of this or that religious point view or scripture, there is no one I know of in ID who has written a paper or published a book claiming a heirarchy of races supported from an ID perspective. If you know of such a work, by all means, please cite it (and the Bible doesn't count we're talking science here, not religion). Further, it is by no means a given that "Intelligent design must also be a form of directed evolution if the Designer does anything other than allow natural selection to follow its course." Why think that? There's nothing I know of in ID that makes this a "must". The rest of your argument is, as far as I can see, fraught with theological problems and misunderstandings. But this really isn't the forum to discuss all that. On the other hand, we have Darwin's Descent of Man which ties such an heirarchy directly to evolutionary theory. In other words the science of evolution led Darwin to this idea of racial superiority and inferiority. There is no such corollary in ID.DonaldM_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Oh yeah, I forgot. This seems relevant
Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?
George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Seversky has a point O'Leary.
But I am - at best - surprised by the lack of interest of science societies in backing away from Darwin’s racism.
Perhaps it's because they have already disavowed racism in general? Why would any "science society" worthy of the name feel the need to "back away" from racism then are not practicing in any case? I suspect what you really object to is the simple fact that Charles Darwin's theory exists at all. The funny thing is that on other threads we have people saying that biblical slavery should be viewed as "a product of the time" and other assorted justifications and should not reflect badly on the bible and god overall. Yes, they say, children were married or sold off but you know, often arranged marriages worked out better then unarranged ones (so sayith Kariosfocus' teacher, so it must be true. Things were different then, they say. Slavery did not mean the same thing back then, it was more like saving up for a car, they say. Poor? Broke? Hungry? Why not become a slave! Only 6 years and you'll have that car you always wanted! Or cart! Or donkey! Yet here we see you chastising Darwin, fact is he was far more reasonable then most in his time and was outspoken in his views in the unfairness of racism. A student of history you are not Madam.George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

This whole idea that you keep pushing is ridiculous. First, the first commenter on the previous post clearly lays out a number of cases of scientists disavowing racism and eugenics. See https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-challenge-to-evolutionary-biologists/#comment-307306 Second, the idea of needing to publicly apologize for the failure of historical figures to measure up to modern standards makes no sense. We don't require constitutional lawyers to publicly disavow Thomas Jefferson's racism before taking them seriously because we understand that he was a product of his time. Keynesian economists are not required to publicly disavow John Maynard Keynes' anti-semitism. The same could be said for any public figure who came from a time in which racism or intolerance was commonplace. We embrace the ideas that still have merit today and throw away the rest. You say that you aren't responsible for what others do in the name of your faith, but what about the Catholic Church itself? Will you publicly denounce all the violations of human rights committed by the Catholic Church throughout history?DanSLO_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Isaac Newton believed fervently in the Christian God. And alchemy. All kinds of weird stuff. Should Newtonians (those who accept his theory of gravity) have to divorce themselves from the Principia?Kevin_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

Denyse Now, if the Darwinists do not do it, won’t we know something useful? I think we will know something very useful indeed. What would you know? The obvious conclusion would be that they have not read your post.Mark Frank_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT}

Since you have chosen to open a new thread for this post I have combined my two previous answers as follows: 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. Intelligent design must also be a form of directed evolution if the Designer does anything other than allow natural selection to follow its course. However if, as must happen in the case of design, the Designer arranges things so that the course of evolution is shaped or directed towards a chosen end, in other words, if the Designer for whatever reason has chosen to favor the survival of one ‘race’ over all the others, then that Designer and the Intelligent Design program itself are both eugenicist and racist by definition. Following from that, it should be clear that what is described in the Bible can also be viewed as a form of directed evolution since it lays out the course of God’s Chosen People. And the God of the Old Testament is no passive observer. He clears a path by striking down the less-favored ‘races’ or assists his chosen ‘race’ in wiping them out. At one point, in the Great Flood, he even goes so far as to annihilate not just other races but all other life on the planet, in effect, wiping the slate clean so that his favored ‘race’ could have a clean start. That is genocide on a scale of which Hitler or Stalin could only have dreamed. To put it bluntly, Christianity, from that perspective, is a racist and eugenicist program.
Darwinist, do you or don’t you divorce this book?
And if Darwinists dissociate themselves from The Descent of Man because of its alleged racist and eugenicist overtones, will you, Denyse O’Leary, also dissociate yourself from the Bible for the same reasons?Seversky_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply