Darwin - a Racist!
apobetics
Did you know that evolutionists rarely discuss Charles Darwin's ideas?
Why is that? What are they fearful about with his cockamamy opinions
and assumptions?
Darwin stated that certain races were more primitive or "apelike" than
others. This "scientific" belief has led to many racist attitudes
toward certain people groups over the years. Yes, racial prejudice
has always been with us and it did not start with the high mucky muck
of evolution. Yet he embraced it and used it to bring horrible
consequences to millions and millions of poor victims still going on
today.
It has been said that Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species" (1859)
is second only to the Bible in influencing the way people think about
life. But did you know the full title of Darwin's book? Its "On the
Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of
FAVORED RACES in the Struggle for Life" Darwin later expanded on his
"races" ideas in the book "The Decent of Man" (he got that right as we
observe today with the degradation of evolutionists!).
Hitler was tremendously influenced by Darwin as well as other Atheist
German authors as he wrote in his book "Mein Kampf" or "my
struggle" (note the same word used by Darwin in his ill begotten book.
He considered himself and other "pure aryans" to be the supermen with
the other races to be exterminated (over 20 million died from this
phony philosophy). The Communists also used these false ideas to
butcher millions as well.
In a recent book by a Canadian author entitled "Race, Evolution and
Behavior" this professor actually ranks the different people groups
along an evolutionary scale, with blacks at the bottom and Asians at
the top. This attitude and practice is still alive with the
evolutionists today.
It is only the Word of God, the Bible, that teaches the truth about
mankind: we are all one race, for we are all descendants of Adam the
first man (Acts 17:26, Genesis 1).
6/24/6000
IlBe...@gmail.com
REPLY: Yes, Darwin was a Racist and thought Asians were at the top of
the 'Evolutionary Ladder' , while Black people were at the bottom . He
also claimed the physical features of a particular man strongly
correlated to where on the evolutionary chain they came. And today,
we are reaping the social consequences of Darwinnian Evolution/
Survival of the Fittest/no intrinsic worth ascribed to the Human
Race ... thru a plethera of social ills , including Racial Prejudice.
The effects that Darwin has on society are far reaching. As you point
out, we are ALL of ONE BLOOD..and we ALL share in the same first man
and first woman which were specially formed , fully functioning , by
a loving Creator in whos image we are. This is the only logical and
rational solution to our NON-material personality traits of love,
reason, rationalizing, abstract thinking, empathy, compassion,
anxiety, et al.. If you dont desire to believe in the Creator, then
you must resort to the absurd idea that Rocks, Dirt, and Hydrogen Gas
(materialism) is ultimately responsible for these Personality Traits ,
including our Will and Intellect. I no longer have that sort of FAITH .
El Guapo
and eugenics were influenced by Darwinism and natural selection but
this post is a bad distortion. Darwin's theory of evolution having
been misapplied via the biological principles of natural selection to
the social, political, and economic realms led to people trying to
place themselves above others. Elitist mindsets seek to support their
confidence and elite status (as they perceive it) whenever they can
and to whatever distortion is available... Educate yourselves and
decide:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html
Hitler listed his greatest influence as the bible and Christianity,
yet apobetic tries to tie him to Darwin...
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I
have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." - Hitler, 1922
"Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the
question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no
one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our
movement is Christian." - Hitler, 1928
"The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany
means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the
Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and
unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is
hostile to religion is a lie." - Hitler, 1933
"Life is hard for many, but it is hardest if you are unhappy and have
no faith. Have faith. Nothing can make me change my own belief." -
Hitler, 1936
The quotes are innumerable. Apobetic's post is pathetic and a typical
defamation attempt to dissuade people from evolution. The facts
remain; as will evolution. Readers should take note of the denigration
and lack of backing in apobetic's post. It is the equivalent of a
political mud slinging.
Evolution does not teach that one race will dominate over another. Its
sad when people ignore fact for their own belief and use libel as
defense..
FREE Video on Evolution
http://www.hhmi.org/catalog/main?action=product&itemId=304
Free Lunch
apobetics <apob...@gmail.com> wrote in
<dfc6f924-007b-40bf...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
>Darwin - a Racist!
>
>Did you know that evolutionists rarely discuss Charles Darwin's ideas?
>Why is that? What are they fearful about with his cockamamy opinions
>and assumptions?
I guess you think that Jesus was a racist and hated all people, too.
Once again, you take things out of the context of the writings and the
context of the times and prove to us that you are a truly hate-filled
liar.
Stop mocking God with your lies.
--
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel
to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy
Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should
take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in
which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn." -- Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis
Lorentz
>
> Darwin stated that certain races were more primitive or "apelike" than
> others.
apelike?
I recall him saying that he thought Negroes lower than Europeans,
both intellectually and morally. He did say some people were more
primitive. Maybe that was Darwin's theological background surfacing, I
am not sure. However, I don't remember a single sentence where he said
that some races were apelike.
I don't think you read a single book by Darwin.
Lorentz
serve some of the others. And we are marked as being the descendents
of Ham, whatever mark may mean. And some of us are the descendants of
Canaanites and have to be driven off our land, "little by little so as
not to damage the land." And some of us are the descendants of
Amalekites and have to be killed "no matter how many generations have
passed." And some of us are descendants of the Jews who who said to
Pontious Pilate "Let the sin fall on us and our descendants."
IlBe...@gmail.com
REPLY: 1." On The Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection
or the Preservation of Favored Races", book. 2. He expanded on his
'races' idea in the book : "The Descent of Man." Many
Evolutionists admit to thier Darwinnian -based beliefs about the
races ; The Canadian Professor/Author of the book :'Race, Evolution
and Behaviour' , actually ranks the different people groups along an
evolutionary scale, with blacks at the bottom and Asians at the top.
Darwin was indeed a Racist and many Evolutionists follow in his
footsteps. Contrary to this, the Creator made ALL in his image , equal
in instrinsic worth and dignity, and from ONE blood blueprint.
Ken
Xtians LOVE to invent quotes to support their fantasies.
Just ask Dimwit Dave in Lake Evil (aka illbe back) how he reinvents
and distorts history with his imaginative phony quotes...
Ken
Tiktaalik
Hate-fuelled drivel from a pair of sanctimonious hypocrites snipped.
You lying, deadbrained, fuckwitted wanker both you and your
cyberbumboy conveniently ignore the FACT that racism as we understand
it was invented by Jews and Christians with a significant contribution
from Muslims in a pathetic and hypocritical attempt to justify the
enslavement and dispossession of black and red skinned people
worldwide. The slave "trade" and the genocidal policies of European
colonists were in full swing long before Darwin was even born and
guess what was cited as a precedent for these disgusting practices?
YOUR PRECIOUS BOOK OF GOATFUCKER FAIRYTALES, that's what!!! How many
Native Americans, Native Tasmanians and Australian Aborigines were
still alive by 1859? How much of their former homelands did they still
occupy? How many thousands if not millions died en route to Europe and
North America and how many spent their entire existence in total
bondage while enduring every imaginable abuse including torture and
rape? How many were slaughtered wholesale, sold into prostitution or
simply worked to death by the good Christian conquistadores and their
descendants? All before anyone had even HEARD of Darwin or even
earlier theories of evolution. Once again you have proved yourselves
to be a pair of smarmy self-righteous arseholes. And speaking of
smarmy self-righteous arseholes I do not for a moment believe that
IKnowIAmALoathsomeDegenerate is a troll, he is a shallow, petty,
jealous, spiteful non-event whose existence (I will not dignify it by
using the term "life") is so barren, useless and hopeless that the
only way he can gain any satisfaction from it is by resorting to
spewing his hate-filled bile at those he envies. The same is true of
his cronies old man jerkoff, Sound off Muppet and this current
pricktard who has just crawled up from the sewer to kiss his diseased
arse.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being." (Abraham Lincoln).
Steven J.
> Darwin - a Racist!
>
> Did you know that evolutionists rarely discuss Charles Darwin's ideas?
>
know it. After all, you say so many things that are demonstrably
false.
>
> Why is that? What are they fearful about with his cockamamy opinions
> and assumptions?
>
beliefs is that evolutionary theory does not depend on the personal or
moral authority of some prophet. Evolution is not accepted because
Charles Darwin taught it, but because the evidence supports it. To
the extent that Darwin's ideas have been refuted by later evidence,
his ideas are rejected and replaced by better-supported ideas. It is
not necessary that Charles Darwin be either right about everything, or
a nice person, for his ideas about common descent and the importance
of natural selection to be right.
>
> Darwin stated that certain races were more primitive or "apelike" than
> others. This "scientific" belief has led to many racist attitudes
> toward certain people groups over the years. Yes, racial prejudice
> has always been with us and it did not start with the high mucky muck
> of evolution. Yet he embraced it and used it to bring horrible
> consequences to millions and millions of poor victims still going on
> today.
>
more primitive or apelike than others? For that matter, in what
respects did he (supposedly) say that these races were more primitive
or apelike? The creationists James Perloff and Hank Hanegraaff cite,
as a distinction between humans and other apes, the fact that humans
can read and write. Of course, not all humans can, and a century ago,
there were entire human cultures in which no one could read or write.
Logically (to describe a way creationists rarely argue) Perloff and
Hanegraaff ought to regard, say, the tribes of the interior of Papua
New Guinea as "more apelike" than western Europeans in this respect.
Darwin, alas, was not innocent of thinking this way, and from time to
time (when he was not protesting against slavery or the mistreatment
of the Tasmanians) was caught writing as though preliterate human
cultures were less obviously distinct from nonhuman apes than were
literate cultures.
Note that "primitive" in evolutionary jargon means simply "more like
the last common ancestor of the groups being compared." "Primitive"
does not mean "inferior," or "stupider," or "worse," or "weaker." It
is, of course, perfectly possible for group A to be more primitive in
one respect than group B, and yet more advanced (derived, evolved)
than group B in some other respect, but then, "more advanced" does not
mean "better," or "higher," or "more perfect."
>
> It has been said that Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species" (1859)
> is second only to the Bible in influencing the way people think about
> life. But did you know the full title of Darwin's book? Its "On the
> Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of
> FAVORED RACES in the Struggle for Life" Darwin later expanded on his
> "races" ideas in the book "The Decent of Man" (he got that right as we
> observe today with the degradation of evolutionists!).
>
Given that _Origin_ did not discuss human evolution beyond a vague
mention in the last chapter ("light will be shed on man and his
origins"), but stuck to variation and evolution of nonhuman animals
and plants, it should be obvious that "favored races" cannot mean
"favored HUMAN races." Darwin used "race" as a rather vague synonym
for "variety" or "subspecies;" this usage is not extinct, as even
modern biologists will speak of, e.g. "chromosomal races" of mice, or
as botanists will speak of "landraces" of various food crops.
>
> Hitler was tremendously influenced by Darwin as well as other Atheist
> German authors as he wrote in his book "Mein Kampf" or "my
> struggle" (note the same word used by Darwin in his ill begotten book.
> He considered himself and other "pure aryans" to be the supermen with
> the other races to be exterminated (over 20 million died from this
> phony philosophy). The Communists also used these false ideas to
> butcher millions as well.
>
If you actually look at Nazi high school textbooks, you note that they
waxed rhapsodic about natural selection and how it preserved races and
species from degradation, but you will look in vain for any reference
to natural selection changing one species into another, or for
references to common ancestry of humans and other species. Some Nazis
burned "Darwinist" books for their supposed atheistic leanings (and,
quite possibly, because Nazis didn't really like being related to
monkeys). Hitler himself, in the _Table Talk_ (the source of all the
anti-Christian quotes attributed to Hitler), disputes the idea that
humans evolved from anything, or that evolution could change one kind
into another. So he does not seem really to have been "tremendously"
influenced by Darwin, even if both of them did use the term
"struggle" (btw, _jihad_ also means "struggle;" you really need to do
a post on Darwin's influence on Muhammed, and never mind little
details on which one lived first).
The Communists, according to my own reading, found that bullets
butchered people rather more effectively than books did, but perhaps
you know different communists. It is perhaps worth noting that the
Communists rejected Darwinism in a different manner from the Nazis:
they had no particular problem with humans being related the monkeys,
but tended to downplay the importance of natural selection (Stalin
notably persecuted biologists who stuck to Darwinian points of view,
but then, Stalin's fondness for Lysenko and his crank neo-Lamarckian
ideaswas, arguably, just Stalinism and not Communism).
>
> In a recent book by a Canadian author entitled "Race, Evolution and
> Behavior" this professor actually ranks the different people groups
> along an evolutionary scale, with blacks at the bottom and Asians at
> the top. This attitude and practice is still alive with the
> evolutionists today.
>
Philippe Rushton (you could look up his name, you know) is not
particularly well regarded among modern evolutionists, nor are his
conclusions generally accepted. Nonetheless, I think you misrepresent
his views: he is not ranking the races on "an evolutionary scale," but
arguing that different races have evolved different mental adaptions
to different environments of evolutionary adaptions. Having a higher
IQ is not "better," it is merely "different" (one might suppose you
would be more open to this point of view than most people).
Note that one of Darwin's achievements was to replace the
"evolutionary ladder" model of Lamarck (in which it was at least
possible to rank species and subspecies from "higher" to "lower," and
"more evolved" automatically equalled "higher") with an "evolutionary
tree" in which different groups could be equally evolved, but in
different directions, and "more evolved" did not automatically mean
"higher." Darwin also grounded evolution on the assumption (supported
by abundant evidence) of massive variation within groups. Even if one
accepted Rushton's conclusion that on average, Asians were more
intelligent than Europeans, this would tell you nothing about the
intellectual abilities of this particular Asian or that particular
European. Indeed, this central principle of evolutionary theory
implies that there cannot be racial essences that are shared by all
members of one race and no members of other races; the fundamental
assumption of racism is fundamentally anti-Darwinian.
>
> It is only the Word of God, the Bible, that teaches the truth about
> mankind: we are all one race, for we are all descendants of Adam the
> first man (Acts 17:26, Genesis 1).
>
Oddly, Darwin, when considering the question of whether all humans
belonged to the same species (in the 19th century, many creationists
disputed this) noted that, from the point of view of his theory, it
didn't much matter; of course all humans shared a common human
ancestor anyway, whether it belonged to the same human species as any
modern humans or not (though he concluded that, in fact, all humans
did belong to the same species).
Charles Carroll, who wrote the creationist manifesto _The Negro a
Beast_ in 1900, disagreed with Darwin. Pointing out that no white
couple ever gave birth to a black child (an argument eerily similar to
"no dog ever gave birth to a cat, therefore they cannot have common
ancestry), he denied that Blacks were descendants of Adam, or human at
all (and why not? if you reject the evidence of common ancestry for
humans and chimpanzees because it contradicts your interpretation of
the Bible, why cannot he reject the idea of common ancestry for white
Europeans and black Africans because it contradicts his
interpretation?).
Of course, most Christian racists rejected this extreme view. They
held that Blacks were fully human, but unequal to whites because of
"the curse of Ham," or because God had decreed that races should be
kept pure, or for some such reason. And certainly "microevolution,"
which creationists mostly accept, is more than sufficient to account
for any difference one wishes to believe exists between races.
But I do not wish to end on such a note; surely it is absurd to hold
that creationism is inherently racist simply because so many
creationists have happened, personally, to be racist. Of course, it
is even more absurd to hold that evolution is inherently racist simply
because many evolutionists have failed to free themselves from the
racial attitudes they grew up with, and evolutionary theory seems to
me inherently hostile to racism in a way that creationism is not.
>
> 6/24/6000
4.55 billion
-- Steven J.
Harold Saxon
Actually my poor deluded Apobetics, Darwin's attitude towards those
lesser humans was a product of his Christian upbringing and was
typical of many so-called good and God-fearing Christians at that time
in history.
In fact long before he set sail on the Beagle, the entire indigenous
population of Tasmania was systematically wiped out by the good and
God-fearing white Christian people who chose to settle there.
It wasnt done through warfare, they were hunted for sport, and
poisoned meat was left deliberately where they would find it and eat
it.
And all this and more was going on long before Darwin posulated his
theory of the Origin of Species.
And that is the truth, not your foul mindless parrotting of the lies
of those whose faith is so weak that they have to attack others who
have never done them any harm.
Darwin123
> On Dec 15, 3:12 pm, IlBeBa...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 12:39 pm, apobetics <apobet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Darwin stated that certain races were more primitive or "apelike" than
> > > others.
He thought certain races were more primitive. However, in his
view all of mankind is apelike. There isn't one species of ape, and
creatures speciate by branching. Therefore, he didn't claim any one
race was closer to apes. He did say that some human races were lower
both intellectually and morally. Of course,he never said that the
lower races should serve the upper races, and he himself was
antislavery.
>This "scientific" belief has led to many racist attitudes
Darwin introduced not a single racist atitude. He described
racism and thought it may have something to do with the way inherited
variation. He didn't tell anyone what to do.
What he introduced was an explanation, right or wrong, as to how
these atitudes originated. When Noah said, "the children of Canaan
shall serve the children of Shem," was he introducing a racist atitude
or was he explaining what had already happened? I suspect this was a
post-facto explanation of racism. Some Creationists would claim that
it is how racism started.
> Nope, his statements were a fact about what is rather than
> > > toward certain people groups over the years.
> Yes, racial prejudice
> > > has always been with us and it did not start with the high mucky muck
> > > of evolution. Yet he embraced it and used it to bring horrible consequences to millions and millions of poor victims still going on today.
>
> > > It has been said that Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species" (1859)
> > > is second only to the Bible in influencing the way people think about
> > > life. But did you know the full title of Darwin's book? Its "On the
> > > Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of
> > > FAVORED RACES in the Struggle for Life"
Thats right, its about Natural Selection. The White Man just does
what comes naturally, that is why the others are disappearing. He
didn't entitle it, lets say, Leviticus (for Moses tribe, the
Levites).
> Darwin later expanded on his
> > > "races" ideas in the book "The Decent of Man" (he got that right as we
> > > observe today with the degradation of evolutionists!).
You didn't read the book. Admit it. You have no idea what he said
or what he wrote in that book. You never got past the title.
He didn't expand on his ideas about human races in that book. I
read the book, and he mostly talks about the sex life of birds. The
only thing he brings to the table in that book is the idea that our
sex lives and romantic games may have influenced the development of
our species. He did not expand on the relationships between races, it
is for the most part a book about SEX! And most of it nonhuman. If you
had read it, you would have mentioned that. It was the most salient
part of the book. You didn't read the book. I think that you were
reading the Bible and projected it on Descent. Now the Bible is about
race and how Godly Selection.
>
> > > Hitler was tremendously influenced by Darwin as well as other Atheist
> > > German authors as he wrote in his book "Mein Kampf" or "my
> > > struggle" (note the same word used by Darwin in his ill >begotten book.
No, the title was not Hitler's. It was the editor of Hitler,
who chose two words out of a long rambling title. How do I know?
Because I read a translation of his original title, which pretty much
filled a page. It was a blow by summary of what happened to him, as he
saw it. No mention of animals, no mention of speciation, and no
mention of Darwin. His editor shortened the title to "My Struggle"
because short titles attract more book buyers. The choice of words was
accidental.
> Hitler said that he
> > > He considered himself and other "pure aryans" to be the >>supermen with the other races to be exterminated (over 20 million >>died from this phony philosophy).
By some counts, 50 million.
The Communists also used these false ideas to
> > > butcher millions as well.
The Communists may have murdered as many as the Fascists, and
they were officially atheist. Unfortunately for your thesis, they did
not originally accept Darwinism. Stalin, for instance, could not
accept Darwin's claim that some aspects of human (and animal)
existence were unchangeable by education alone. Therefore, Stalin
suppressed genetic biologists and hitched his intellectual horse to
Lysenko. Lysenko had the idea that acquired behaviors were commonly
inherited. Darwin thought this effect weak, but to Lysenko this was
the major source of changes in behavior. Stalin continued to ban
research in real genetics, ordered the farmers to listen to Lysenko,
and continued to murder millions. Must of been Stalin's his
theological training.
Although I admit that Communists have killed as many as
Fascists, my research shows me that they never methodically focused on
any one group due to "hereditary." Very often, what would happen was
the opposite. The Commies would try to assimilate a group who wouldn't
be assimilated, ask help from the locals who were sometimes religious
fanatics, and the locals would wipe out the people in this
unassimilated group.
The Communists never developed true death factories with gas
chambers, for instance. Strangely, many of the people they "murdered"
weren't killed by violence, but starved due to some very badly planned
program on. So if intent by itself makes murder, the Communists were
better than the Nazis. The Communist body count may have been bigger,
however. Maybe the Communists were guilty of "negligent homicide" on a
big scale. I am not a fan of the Communists or the Nazis. But their
intent was not the same.
> > > In a recent book by a Canadian author entitled "Race, >Evolution and Behavior" this professor actually ranks the different >people groups along an evolutionary scale, with blacks at the >bottom and Asians at the top.
If I was a black person, I would see this as a challenge rather
than a threat. I would try to show the guy that I was smarter than he
thought. Trying to suppress someones opinion is bound to reinforce it.
>This attitude and practice is still alive with the
> > > evolutionists today.
Well, now I feel obliged to prove I wasn't a racist. Glad you
brought it up, although you are wrong.
>
> > > It is only the Word of God, the Bible, that teaches the truth about
> > > mankind: we are all one race, for we are all descendants of Adam the
> > > first man (Acts 17:26, Genesis 1).
It does not teach the equality between people. People early on
do sins, and gain acquired characteristics that condemn their
descendents to bondage (Ham, Cain, et al). This is NOT Darwinist.
>
> > > 6/24/6000
>
> > REPLY: Yes, Darwin was a Racist and thought Asians were at the top of
> > the 'Evolutionary Ladder' , while Black people were at the bottom .
Actually, I don't remember him saying Asians were on the top. In
his day, Asians were kept down by the Europeans and were considered
inferior too. Right now, Asians are proving Darwin wrong on this
particular point. Good for them. Hope the Black people follow through.
But to some extent it depends on them.
>He
> > also claimed the physical features of a particular man strongly
> > correlated to where on the evolutionary chain they came.
Darwin never said that. You may be confusing him with a French
scholar called Lambrosia. Lambrosia was an idiot. I wonder what he
looked like?
> And today,
> > we are reaping the social consequences of Darwinnian Evolution/
> > Survival of the Fittest/no intrinsic worth ascribed to the Human
> > Race ... thru a plethera of social ills , including Racial Prejudice.
> > The effects that Darwin has on society are far reaching.
Really? I am old enough to rember apartheid in South Africa. It
seemed to me that much of the negative conflict was between the
Afrikaans churches and the Black churches, not between secular
scientists and the poor people. Didn't the Afrikaans call some of the
Black Church groups "Murder Incorporated," while the Afrikaans church
supported Black subjugation? The Afrikaans would claim that the
conflict was caused by Communists. I don't think the problem was with
the Afrikaans people, actually, who today often seem very tolerant. I
think it was misapplied religion.
> As you point
> > out, we are ALL of ONE BLOOD..and we ALL share in the same first man
> > and first woman which were specially formed , fully functioning , by
> > a loving Creator in whos image we are.
Except if you are a child of Canaan, Cain, Esau, Ish
Darwin123
> On 15 Dec, 18:39, apobetics <apobet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In fact long before he set sail on the Beagle, the entire indigenous
> population of Tasmania was systematically wiped out by the good and
> God-fearing white Christian people who chose to settle there.
>
was horrible. However, is there any evidence that the men who did it
were even nominally Christians? Did they set up a Church?
It seems to me that a lot of the time God fearing people
"delegate" the atrocities to a morally deprived subculture. I think
this is happening now among Moslems. The Shi'ites and Sunni families
just want cheap housing, they don't want to ask how it became
available to them. The know, of course, but they prefer to think the
monsters that clear the way for them are acting on "Gods" orders. Of
course, God never seems to intercede directly so it must have been
so...
It would be helpful to know the history of the colony after the
Tasmanians were slaughtered like animals. Well, actually they weren't
quite slaughtered like animals. I think some of the women were raped
first. The Bible would have at least made the men pay a fine before
killing the women.
In any case, Darwin was just stating what was happening. His
theory of evolution didn't cause these murders. They tried to
partially explain how atrocities like this happen. Natural selection
is a natural process that happens. If you want to stop it, then you
have to do something unnatural.
A theory isn't like an order. Gravity makes a rock fall down.
Newton isn't blamed for rocks being tossed at peoples heads. That
would be a Biblical order (see stoning).