A challenge to “evolutionary biologists”

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 10, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

I put this in the combox below another post, but decided to put it on the front page, for reasons of social responsibility.

I think that “evolutionary biology” is the basket-weaving course of science – but basket weaving keeps some people from crime and drug addiction, after all – so who am I to say it isn’t worthing?.When are “evolutionary biologists” going to get around to admitting Darwin’s racism and its consequences?

Here is what I wrote to one self-righteous commenter:

When a world association of evolutionary biologists formally acknowledges that “The Descent of Man” is one long racist tract and *disassociates* its members from Darwin’s actual views, I will be impressed.

Otherwise not. And lots of other people will not be impressed either.

In the meantime, attacks on anyone’s character are entirely beside the point.

There is a huge, open, running, rotting Stage 4 sore here – visible to the whole world – that “evolutionary biologists” seem in no hurry to deal with.

It is NO use telling me that no one agrees with Darwin if science associations are not prepared to make a formal statement about his actual views and disassociate themselves from them.

I would have thought that the Darwin year was the exact right time to do just exactly that – especially if it is true that so few biologists are racists, as you say*.

To me, the fact that it never occurred to them to do so is highly significant – given the world we live in.

*I don’t say anything one way or the other about all that except this: I ask for a general retraction of Darwin’s views on race and you can be very sure that I will know what to make of any failure to do so. And it is no use quoting high panjandrums against me.

You can be sure you will be hearing from me again – and again – on this. So why not just deal with it?

Comments

Fascinating discussiondrstevej_{March 14, 2009
March
03
Mar
14
14
2009
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Sal Gal, If Creation as opposed to Creationism was understood in Panda's to be conceptually the same as Intelligent Design, even prior to the afore mentioned trial, would you still consider the change of the name dishonest? That question aside, your response seems almost to indicate that you are using the particular issue in question as an argument against O'Leary's position that Darwinists should also create public denouncements of racism, whereas I think both would be a good idea. Or is this your position as well?Lord Timothy_{March 13, 2009
March
03
Mar
13
13
2009
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Seversky
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. ...[I]f 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.
1. The only examples you give of a Designer favoring one race over another are taken from the Bible. At most, all one can conclude from your argument is that Intelligent Design is eugenicist and racist if it identifies the Designer with the God of the Bible. 2. In any case, your Biblical examples are unconvincing, even on a literal reading of Scripture: (a) the Flood, which according to the Biblical narrative wiped out all of humanity with the exception of Noah and his family, did not favor any particular race over another, because the book of Genesis itself states that the various races of humanity did not arise until after the Flood:
These are the groupings of Noah's sons, according to their origins and by their nations. From these the other nations of the earth branched out after the Flood (Genesis 10:32).
(b) the Bible makes it abundantly clear, again and again, that God did not favor Israel because of any merits on its part, but precisely because it was a lowly and insignificant nation; (c) It is a gross mis-representation of Scripture to say that the God of the Old Testament "clears a path by striking down the less-favored 'races' or assists his chosen 'race' in wiping them out." The reason why some tribes were wiped out had nothing to do with Lebensraum or "competition for resources" - as the Book of Exodus shows, God was quite capable of feeding the Israelites for 40 years in the desert. Nor did God command the Israelites to wipe out all the tribes it encountered, but only those tribes whose barbaric cultural practices - including burning their own sons and daughters as sacrifices to the gods (Deuteronomy 12:31) - threatened to corrupt the entire nation of Israel, poisoning it at the roots. (I don't want to waste time arguing about alleged Biblical atrocities, so let me just refer you to these online articles: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html , http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html and http://www.susancanthony.com/Resources/Dennis/canaan.html ); (d) Finally, let me conclude by quoting a verse of Scripture:
"Are not you Israelites the same to me as the Cushites [Ethiopians]?" declares the Lord (Amos 9:7).
This should suffice to refute any notion that the God of the Bible is racist.vjtorley_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

uoflcard: what makes you think I am a woman?critiacrof_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

Sal Gal, Are you too good to be true. Another example of the inanity from the peanut gallery. The fact that you make such a vapid argument is great for ID. Find the passages in the book you object to and we can discuss them. Whether they appeared by a search and replace or by an infinite number of monkeys, it makes no difference. It depends on what the book says. If there are objectionable text, then we can discuss it. But meanwhile keep up the non sequiturs because it helps us make our case.jerry_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT}

O'Leary,
It would be EASY to do.
I'm waiting for the Discovery Institute to denounce the intellectually dishonest transformation of a creationist textbook into an "intelligent design" textbook through the magic of global-search-and-replace. It would be EASY to do. Clearly "cdesign proponentsists" says much more about the contemporary ID movement than Darwin's racism says about contemporary evolutionary biology. The phrase "intelligent design" came into widespread usage after the Supreme Court ruled that "creation" could not be mentioned in public-school science classes. Hiding the fact that intelligent design is creation of complex specified information out of nothing is patently dishonest. The Discovery Institute should acknowledge that design is creation. It would be EASY to do.Sal Gal_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

On the one hand, it was rare for anyone living in the 1800's to *not* be a racist (by today's standards). On the other hand, in this politically correct climate, it's incredibly common for those representing those victimized in the past to demand apologies today. Like it or not, Darwin's ideas have been used to justify some unseemly ideas/regimes/organizations (whether or not he would have personally approved of them). If it weren't in regards to Darwin, I suspect there would be some just falling all over themselves to issue the apology. I also think that in this year of Darwin, it would seem appropriate to say *something* about the issue now. What a perfect opportunity to clear this up once and for all. An apology clearly *wouldn't* mean that Darwin's ideas were invalid (and no one in their right mind thinks O'Leary is saying that). Darwin doesn't deserve the adoration he is receiving for much better reasons than his racism. His ideas were 1) largely borrowed from others and 2) clearly exceeded the evidence (and the gap grows larger all the time between what random, chance mutations can reasonably be expected to achieve versus what it would *need* to achieve to account for the diversity, complexity, interdependence, and information-rich systems readily apparent in life as we now understand it). Not to mention the fact, that even *if* random, chance mutations could account for what we see in life, someone would still have to resolve the chicken or egg conundrum of the sudden appearance of the first life-form capable of DNA-based replication. How could a DNA-based lifeform "evolve" before a lifeform capable of perpetuating mutations through something like DNA was present? Anyone? Anyone? I'm sure we've all seen the "insert miracle here" cartoon that occurs at the end of a project plan. The Darwinists want to use the "insert miracle here" at the *beginning* to account for that first life-form. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Lastly, tying this issue to racism within Christianity is clearly a dodge. As previously stated, ID has nothing to do with religion. Also, O'Leary isn't suggesting that Darwin's ideas be abandoned because of his racism. She's just suggesting that his racism be admitted in this year of Darwin.mtreat_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

O'Leary @ 30
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.
Nor would I hold you responsible for everything done in the name of Catholicism but you do stay in the faith, which is problematical. Following my argument at #35, 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
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

I find this whole discussion a collosal waste of time. Most people in the mid 1800's were racist and so was Lincoln. It may depend upon what you mean what racist means. Does it mean you have an opinion that certain ethnic groups are inferior or superior on some characteristics? If that is true, then I bet most people are racists today. Does it mean that you treat people of certain ethnic groups differently? If so then most of us do it because we treat our own ethnic groups with more favor than others. Does it mean we cause others of a different ethnic group to have less rights than others? We are sort of obligated by law in the US not to do this and in some cases I have witnessed that the reverse takes place. Also slavery for most of history was not racial in the way it was in the Americas after the early 1500's. A lot of slavery was the enslavement of your enemies and there was a time when slaves were captured soldiers from battle with the understanding that they were slaves because the alternative was death. So they were cnsidered living dead people and thus owed their life to their conqueror or who he disposed the slave too. And since their children would never have been born they were considered slaves too. Don't take this as I endorse this, only that is how slavery was justified by some especially in Roman times. The discussions here at least to me are friviolous. Darwin was a racist and expressed it in some of his writings. To me the real issue is how accurate are his writings. A lot when it comes to evolution were bogus and that should be the discussion. The real issue is if Darwin's racist views affected his conclusions in his writings or not.jerry_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PDT}

DonaldM @ 26
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.
Thank you for asking, it is actually quite simple. 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.Seversky_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

Harville,
Given a choice, I think I’d prefer to be called a racial epithet than put into bondage
See the Biblical situation I gave above. Say you had no money, you were deeply in debt, and you lived in a time or place where there is no "soup kitchens" or "welfare", and people are killed for not paying debts. Would you still rather be called names and hated? Or would you rather save your life by serving a person (which was not necessarily for life, but at least for a long time) and that person in return pays off your debt and gives you food, clothing, shelther, etc. And your master (if he followed God's rule) would rule over you in a loving way, not as a whip-thrashing slave driver. Obviously, we would all rather be hated than to be taken out of our current situations unwillingly and forced into hostile bondage (or bondage of any kind, for that matter). I'm not saying this is exactly what critiacrof was thinking about when she wrote:
I am not promoting slavery or anything, but slavery is not necessarily wrong, racism is
While slavery in the American pre-Cival War sense is definitely wrong, it is "not necessarily" wrong in all cases. I mentioned one situation in which it is arguably a good thing, which would validate her statement.uoflcard_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT}

uoflcard: I totally agree.critiacrof_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

B L Harville: rasicm is more than name calling and slavery is not always the same as being put into bondage.critiacrof_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

Slavery is not the same as racism! A racist can be against slavery(like Darwin). Someone not against slavery can be against racism(like God). Actually slavery can be the opposite of racism. There are forms of “good” slavery like convicted criminals that are doing work. I am not promoting slavery or anything, but slavery is not necessarily wrong, racism is!
Exactly. You made many points that I was going to make in response to Arthur Smith (#22). I would like to make a clarification, though. In the modern sense of the word, slavery is completely involuntary and horrible - a slave today is generally forced into being owned for no legitimate reason, and many times taken from a situation they would rather be in (Africans being captured and taken across the Atlantic against their will). In Biblical terms, slavery is really a money issue. A slave (which usually is of the same race as his master) was so far in debt that he could not pay it off, and probably would have paid with their life, or would have starved to death (including their children). Slavery was a way out. An in-debt person could have his debts paid off by someone, and he would then become their slave for life. But he would be fed and taken care of. Ephesians 6:5-9:
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, 6not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free. 9Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.
This certainly was not what happened in the South during the first part of this country.uoflcard_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

"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 statement *divorcing* Darwin's racism. Just divorce "The Descent of Man" now! Just DO it! 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. Just do it, okay?O'Leary_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Slavery persisted for centuries under Christianity and other religions. And then Science begot the Industrial Revolution, which made labor slavery obsolete, and allowed people to be more moral - and the institution of slavery finally came to an end. So we can thank scientists, not Christians, for ending slavery.
Again, this misses the entire point of the argument. Additionally, I argue that some of it is wrong. Science made slavery less necessary, not obsolete. Even today, slavery is not "obsolete". Free labor will probably never be "obsolete". That's not to say it isn't any more or less heinous. But while scientific advances may have made some proponents more willing to give it up, MORALS (as you said) are what ended it. Morals are not scientifically founded, therefore science has nothing to do with morals. The Industrial Revolution (especially the technological advances) did not end slavery. In fact, it allowed another means of something close to slavery, such as children working 18 hours a day in factories and given next to nothing in return. I would also argue that yes, we can thank Christians for ending slavery. It was Judeo-Christian morals that drove the leaders and troops to fight, give up many of their lives and end slavery altogether. Also, you juxtapose scientists and Christians as if they are two fundamentally discrete populations. There is no such thing as a Christian scientist? And can some science not be driven by Christian morals, such as Internet filters? I do agree that science can help influence people to be more moral, such as security and surveillance systems that discourage theft or burglary.uoflcard_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

critiacrof:
I am not promoting slavery or anything, but slavery is not necessarily wrong, racism is!
Given a choice, I think I'd prefer to be called a racial epithet than put into bondage.B L Harville_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

Slavery is not the same as racism! A racist can be against slavery(like Darwin). Someone not against slavery can be against racism(like God). Actually slavery can be the opposite of racism. There are forms of "good" slavery like convicted criminals that are doing work. I am not promoting slavery or anything, but slavery is not necessarily wrong, racism is! If you value a certain human race the same as an animal and you are against animal torture, you are a racist, but against slavery.critiacrof_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT}

Allen McNeill
So I’ll make a deal with O’Leary: every time she brings up Darwin’s racism and tries to tie it to evolutionary biology as a whole, I’ll bring up the racists who used religion as a justification for racism. And, if she’s game, I’ll work with her to get the issue brought up in our respective organizations, and see if it flies. Should be interesting…
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.DonaldM_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

Slavery persisted for centuries under Christianity and other religions. And then Science begot the Industrial Revolution, which made labor slavery obsolete, and allowed people to be more moral - and the institution of slavery finally came to an end. So we can thank scientists, not Christians, for ending slavery.B L Harville_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

Oops! omitted "article" in previous comment. I wonder if Kariosfocus may like to inject some of his broad knowledge on the subject?Arthur Smith_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

There is a New Scientist on the issue of Darwin's attitude to slavery.Arthur Smith_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT}

On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horsewhip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said, that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful Negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind hearted man was on the point of separating for ever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of; -- nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the Negro, as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. . . . Such enquirers will ask slave about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull, who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master’s ears. . . . Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter;--what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty.
Charles Darwin: Voyage of the BeagleArthur Smith_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Some of you are missing the point. Here it is succinctly. I am an evangelical Christian. If a Christian comes up to me and says "I believe it pleases God for me to practice racism". I can show him quite clearly ( chapter and verse ) that he is wrong, that he is not following Christ in a manner consistent with His fundamental teachings, and that he is doing damage to the name of Christ in promoting his views in His Name. Mr. MacNeill you can not do the same with someone who says "I am a believer in Darwin through and through. And I support eugenics completely because of it" As a matter of fact, he can make the case that you being against eugenics are not a fully committed Darwinist.JDH_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

Quite right Seversky, we should be guided to our moral outrage by scienctists. After all, they has such a swell record. High-explosives, higher explosives, germ warfare, smart bombs, guided missiles, biological toxins, long range artillery, nerve gas, intercontinental ballistic missiles......they all came about by the Southern Baptists, over the protest of science. What does any of this have to do with the fact that chance is completely incapable of coordinating the function recorded in DNA? I have no idea.Upright BiPed_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

George L Farquhar:
The SBC became a separate denomination in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia, following a regional split with northern Baptists over the issue of slavery.
So, not all agreed on what your “standards” meant.
No, not all have agreed on the Bible. It has been spun to mean almost anything one's heart desires over the centuries (see the KKK for racism, hardcore biker gangs believing hell is just one big biker rally), but that doesn't mean that they were correct in their interpretation. People screwing up God's words is perfectly in line with the foundation of Christianity - we are sinners! It is obvious that without stretching or skewing scripture, it points to no man being better than another in God's eyes. That is the point: True Christianity suggests all men are equal, while true Darwinism is fundamentally racist. It is GOOD that atheists and Darwinists are illogical in their rejection (outwardly, at least) of an unmistakable extrapolation of their theory. I say "illogical", even though there is logic behind their rejection of racism. That is, they have strong moral convictions that all men are equal, and logically one will tend to follow their emotions and morals. It becomes illogical when it blatantly contradicts their dogmatic "science". But this is nothing new for a devout Darwinist. The human experience continuously contradicts the extrapolations of Darwinian theory, including morals, genuine altruism, the feeling that you are actually you, a free-thinking creature and not a chemical computer, etc. And speaking of the SBC's racist history: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n21_v112/ai_17332136
The resolution declared that messengers, as SBC delegates are called, "unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin" and "lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest." It offered an apology to all African-Americans for "condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime" and repentance for "racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously." Although Southern Baptists have condemned racism in the past, this was the first time the predominantly white convention had dealt specifically with the issue of slavery.
Gary Frost, SBC second vice-president and the first African-American to serve as an SBC officer:
"On behalf of my black brothers and sisters, we accept your apology and we extend to you our forgiveness in the name of Jesus Christ," Frost responded. "We pray that the genuineness of your repentance will be demonstrated in your attitude and your action." "I believe it's up to the church of Jesus Christ to begin the process of true reconciliation."
uoflcard_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

O'Leary @ 17
Darwin was a total racist. That is pure and simple. And disgusting.
No. He was not. Not in the sense you are using the term. What is disgusting is the smell of self-righteous hypocrisy which surrounds this hatchet-job.
It is a huge scandal that the fact is not far more widely confronted - and rejected.
No, what irks you is that there is no huge scandal for you to report. That is why you are trying to manufacture one.
It should be part of the charter of any science society to reject such notions.
Why? Most countries already have statutory bans on racism which are as binding on science societies as anyone else. What purpose would be served by including a specific repudiation of racism - other than suggesting that there was special problem with racism in that field?
The reason such a clause is not part of the associations’ charters already, I suspect, is that too many of their members accept “evolutionary” notions that would put some groups of humans “ahead” of others in some proposed “evolutionary” scheme.
So you are accusing most evolutionary biologists of being racist? I am sure they will be pleased to hear that.
Lots of people around the world feel justifiably offended by European racism.
Those that do, if they believe racism is a solely a European or white problem, are themselves racist. Racism is a human problem. You will find it on every continent and in every country on Earth to some extent. Black-, brown-, red- and yellow-skinned are just as capable of it as white-skinned people.
I want a complete, specific, total rejection of Darwin’s ideas about race from all scientific societies that have engaged in the cause of “evolution” - and a public recognition of the harm his ideas have caused.
If Darwin's ideas about race - or the creationist caricature of them - still formed a part of evolutionary thinking today then you might have a case. They don't and you don't.
In the meantime, when anyone, anywhere yaps about Darwin on behalf of “science”, let’s ask “Have you read ‘The Descent of Man’? What do you think about it?”
I think it is the first good idea I have heard here. By all means, have everyone read the full text of Descent rather than the quotes dug up by creationist miners. Let them judge for themselves rather than being told what to be outraged at by a journalist.Seversky_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

OK - perhaps I'm missing something here. What exactly is racist about the theory of evolution as we now understand it? Do we now feel some moral outrage that two mollusks have a common ancestor?mikev6_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

My thanks to all commenters. Darwin was a total racist. That is pure and simple. And disgusting. It is a huge scandal that the fact is not far more widely confronted - and rejected. It should be part of the charter of any science society to reject such notions. Not only are such notions false but they are contrary to peace, order, and good government. The reason such a clause is not part of the associations' charters already, I suspect, is that too many of their members accept "evolutionary" notions that would put some groups of humans "ahead" of others in some proposed "evolutionary" scheme. If that is not the real reason, why don't they just DO it? Why don't they all just DO it at their next round of meetings? All they need do is say "that ol' Brit toff was wrong about this specific stuff, and we REJECT it" [and say WHAT they reject in detail]. And it is no use telling me about individual panels. I don't care what private individuals say. Lots of people around the world feel justifiably offended by European racism. I want a complete, specific, total rejection of Darwin's ideas about race from all scientific societies that have engaged in the cause of "evolution" - and a public recognition of the harm his ideas have caused. Darwn's ideas were a key trigger of the eugenics movement, for example, in which many thousands of people were forcibly sterilized - essentially changing their lives - when there was no clear reason, only some Brit toff's theories. If the scientific societies do not do so, I must assume that the question of their members' real views is wide open. Who knows? Maybe the otherwise completely useless American Scientific Affiliation might take the lead here? Oh no. That is way too much to ask, of course. We need a new science society that takes on these questions more fearlessly. In the meantime, when anyone, anywhere yaps about Darwin on behalf of "science", let's ask "Have you read 'The Descent of Man'? What do you think about it?"O'Leary_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

George L Farquhar, I appreciate the response. I'm not certain if you fully grasped what I meant. Regardless of what the Southern Baptists believed, and I believe (given that the Wikipedia article you quoted is correct) they were in error, but they did not set the standard. The standard was set by scripture, and as such, either way, they most certainly and inevitavely would have changed. After all, the Southern Baptists are some of the more literalist traditions in Evangelical Protestantism today. They believe fully in Sola Scriptura. Moral errors (as far as the scriptures are concerned) have been made throughout Christian history, resuting in some attrocities - that is no surprise. But the moral standard has been there from the beginning. Another point I would like to make is in the area of hermeneutics. While there are many interpretations of bible passages, there is only one intended meaning of a passage, and that meaning can be gleaned from a combination of the historical context, and a propper reading. However, just as you or I can take each others' words out of context and use them to say what we did not intend them to say, so do some people take scripture out of context. It has been a common occurence throughout church history. This does not negate the fact that the bible has something specific to say, and much of what it says is based in a morality that places human beings as having been created in the image of God; therefore, having a value that is beyond compare. And scripture does not make distinctions regarding human value and race. So whether some disagree on what the standards meant, does not negate the fact that the standard was there - some may have chosen to ignore it; which is their prerogative as individuals with free will, consequences notwithstanding. BTW, I don't trust most of what Wikipedia has to say regarding American church history. They may get it right in some instances, but I would trust more balanced sources.CannuckianYankee_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply