Evolutionism the Basis of Racism
Apobetics
Racism is based on hate.
First, while not all evolutionists are racists. the theory of
evolution is racist in the extreme. In his book 'The Descent of Man'
Charles Darwin speculated, "At some future period, not very distant as
measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost
certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
world." In addition, he subtitled his magnum opus 'The Preservation
of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.' Note: "Struggle" in
English is the same as "Kampf" in German as in 'Mine Kampf" Adolf
Hitler's manifesto upon which Nazism was built and millions of
untermenchen (less than humans) were murdered to cleanse the Super
race. Thomas Huxley, who coned the term agnostic and was the man most
responsible for ad acing Darwinian doctrine, went so far as to say,
"No rational man cognizant of the facts, believes that the average
Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."
Huxley was not only militantly racist but also lectured frequently
against the resurrection of Jesus Christ in whom "[We} are all one
blood" (Galatians 3:28). Social Darwinism has provided the pseudo-
scientific substructure for some of the most significant atrocities in
human history.
For evolution to succeed, it is as crucial that the unfit die as that
the fittest survive. Marvin Lubenow graphically describes the ghastly
consequences of such beliefs and practices in his book 'Bones of
Contention': "If the unfit survived indefinitely, they would continue
to 'infect' the fit with their less fit genes. The result is that the
more fit genes would be diluted and compromised by the less fit genes,
and evolution could not take place." Adolf Hitler's philosophy
(influenced by Nietzsche ) that Jews were subhuman and that Aryans
were supermen led to the extermination of six million Jews and
millions more Slavs. In the words of Sir Arthur Keith, a militant
anti-Christian physical anthropologist: "The German Fuhrer, as I have
consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently
sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of
evolution."
Finally, while the evolutionary racism of Darwin's day as politically
incorrect today, current biology textbooks still promote vestiges of
racism. For example, in inherently racist recapitulation theory is
not only common fare in pseudo science curricula but has been
championed in our generation by such evolution luminaries as Carl
Sagan. This despite the fact that modern studies in molecular
genetics have demonstrated the utter falsity of the recapitulation
theory. The fact that recapitulation is inherently racist is
underscored by no less an evolutionary authority than Stephen Jay
Gould who lamented that "recapitulation provided a convenient focus
for the pervasive racism of white scientists" in the modern era.
If you think this is not correct; watch these evolutionists spew out
their hatred now...
The Bible Answer Book, Hank Hanegraaff, Countryman Press, 2004
Milan
"Apobetics" <apob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182104384.8...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Evolutionism the Basis of Racism
>
> Racism is based on hate.
>
The bible is full of racism. Read Matthew 15:21, where Jesus calls
Canaanites "dogs", or Mark 7:24 where he applies the same insult to Greeks.
regards
Milan
Steven J.
> Evolutionism the Basis of Racism
>
> Racism is based on hate.
>
Hanegraaff's writings.
>
> First, while not all evolutionists are racists. the theory of
> evolution is racist in the extreme. In his book 'The Descent of Man'
> Charles Darwin speculated, "At some future period, not very distant as
> measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost
> certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
> world."
>
First of all, "the theory of evolution" is not identical to "every
idea that Charles Darwin ever held." This is a point that Hanegraaff
seems to miss consistently, as do a number of creationists:
evolutionary theory is not a religion, Charles Darwin is not its
prophet, and no one assumes that Darwin's (or any other
evolutionist's) writings are inerrant or the absolute authority on the
subject. It is as invalid to argue "Charles Darwin was a racist,
therefore evolutionary theory is racist," as it is to argue "Charles
Darwin was an English landowner, therefore evolutionary theory is an
English landowner." Actually, of course, Darwin was less racist than
most of his contemporaries (some of the creationsists of his day
denied that white humans and other races even belonged to the same
species), and was a staunch opponent of slavery. But that, too, is
not something that can be attributed to evolutionary theory, unless
one can show that it actually follows from common descent and natural
selection.
Second, Hanegraaff is quoting out of context, and reading description
as advocacy. Darwin, in the passage quoted, is addressing a question
about the evidence for human evolution. Humans evolved from a sort of
monkey, and monkeys still exist. Humans evolved through an ape stage,
and apes still exist. Humans evolved through an ape-man stage, but
there are no ape-men alive today. Why not, if the apes and monkeys
are still around? Darwin's answer is that, in competition for
habitat, our human ancestors wiped out their ape-man cousins who lived
in the same sort of environment and needed the same resources (and,
indeed, we would eventually even destroy the great apes, taking their
jungles away from them to turn into farms and cities). To support
this explanation, he notes the wars that high-technology tribes and
nations have fought against low-technology tribes and nations, and how
in his own day people with guns and steel (and germs, as Jared Diamond
pointed out) were wiping out the American Indians and Australian
aborigines. Darwin did not say that this ought to happen, or that it
was a good thing; he merely noted that it did happen, and that
something similar presumably happened to the ape-men who had once
existed as living intermediates between _Homo sapiens_ and the other
great apes.
>
> In addition, he subtitled his magnum opus 'The Preservation
> of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.' Note: "Struggle" in
> English is the same as "Kampf" in German as in 'Mine Kampf" Adolf
> Hitler's manifesto upon which Nazism was built and millions of
> untermenchen (less than humans) were murdered to cleanse the Super
> race.
>
Hitler's "struggle," of course, was against less extreme (or, more
genuinely conservative) members of the German far right to establish a
new political movement fusing nationalism and socialism. _Mein Kampf_
was at one time titled "settling accounts," and was Hitler's way of
settling scores with all the anti-democratic forces in Germany who
didn't appreciate his genius as much as he thought they ought to. It
had nothing much to do with Darwin's idea of a "struggle for
existence" among variant offspring.
Indeed, one of the more striking features of the Nazi embrace of
natural selection was that they saw it purely as a purifying,
conservative force, weeding out deviations from the ideal, rather than
as a force capable of molding a species into something new. The Nazis
were not fanatic evolutionists, although not all of them joined Hitler
in his belief that natural forces could never have sufficed to form
humans from nonhuman ancestors. At least some Nazis put Darwin's
books on their lists of anti-Aryan texts to be burned.
>
> Thomas Huxley, who coned the term agnostic and was the man most
> responsible for ad acing Darwinian doctrine, went so far as to say,
> "No rational man cognizant of the facts, believes that the average
> Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."
>
He said that to a gathering of anti-slavery activists, who had invited
him to address them because of his staunch opposition to slavery.
Again, his views were, alas, not uncommon among 19th-century
abolitionists, who wished to be assured (as Huxley was willing to do)
that freeing the slaves would not result in an African takeover of
white European civilization. My point, above, about Darwin applies
equally to Huxley, of course: evolutionary theory does not rest on his
personal authority or moral example, and does not consist of his
personal opinions.
I would argue that evolutionary theory is anti-racist in a respect
that creationism cannot be. Evolutionary theory holds that there is
variation in every group (note Huxley's qualification about the
"average Negro;" as an evolutionist, he will not assume that all
members of any race are basically identical to one another); this
variation among individuals is what natural selection acts on.
Variation within races is likely to exceed variation within them;
there is no racial "essence" that unites all members of one race and
excludes all others, no trait one which one could rest a claim of
"racial superiority" that unites all members of one race and excludes
all members of other races. Contrast this with the creationist idea
of curses on particular lineages, afflicting all descendants of some
particular cursed ancestor (e.g. the "curse of Ham" used by
creationists to justify slavery).
>
> Huxley was not only militantly racist but also lectured frequently
> against the resurrection of Jesus Christ in whom "[We} are all one
> blood" (Galatians 3:28). Social Darwinism has provided the pseudo-
> scientific substructure for some of the most significant atrocities in
> human history.
>
The Nazis, as noted, burned works of "primitive Darwinism," and sought
to create a society in which individualism was totally subsumed into
the racial collective -- a far cry from the dog-eat-dog social atomism
usually associated with the term "social Darwinism." The Communists,
of course, no slouches themselves in the significant atrocity
department, abhorred the capitalism usually associated with "social
Darwinism" (and, for that matter, the emphasis on race rather than
class as a basis for society and revolution). So you're pretty much
left with Andrew Carnegie and his buddies as your exemplar of the
atrocities of social Darwinism, and I'll take them over the
Inquisition any day.
>
> For evolution to succeed, it is as crucial that the unfit die as that
> the fittest survive. Marvin Lubenow graphically describes the ghastly
> consequences of such beliefs and practices in his book 'Bones of
> Contention': "If the unfit survived indefinitely, they would continue
> to 'infect' the fit with their less fit genes. The result is that the
> more fit genes would be diluted and compromised by the less fit genes,
> and evolution could not take place."
>
The above is deeply confused, of course. Evolutionary theory is
descriptive, not prescriptive; it is no more a justification for
forcible removal of the "unfit" than gravitational theory is a
justification for pushing people off bridges. Indeed, since "fitness"
is a product of the specific environment (what is "fittest" in one
environment is "unfit" in another: the traits that make a polar bear
fit in the Arctic would serve it poorly in a jungle), there can be no
universal standard of "fitness." Nor can a government do anything to
promote "fitness:" whatever policies it adopts can only change the
criteria for "fitness" in the particular environment it controls.
Evolution itself has no goals that we can strive for or policies that
we can help to "succeed" or somehow hinder.
No population is trying to evolve, and nature is not trying to make
anything evolve, and the theory of evolution does not hold either that
evolution is necessarily progress or that it ought to be the goal of
society or any individual. In any given environment, some particular
traits will be more successful than others, and will become more
common. This is evolution; it happens automatically and without human
help. Humans can interfere, and become a selective force in their own
right, but this does not mean that any human policy serves the
(nonexistent) goals of evolution better than any other.
>
> Adolf Hitler's philosophy
> (influenced by Nietzsche ) that Jews were subhuman and that Aryans
> were supermen led to the extermination of six million Jews and
> millions more Slavs. In the words of Sir Arthur Keith, a militant
> anti-Christian physical anthropologist: "The German Fuhrer, as I have
> consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently
> sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of
> evolution."
>
Keith went on to note that Hitler was doing this very badly,
destroying his own nation in the process of trying to help it. Keith
did not think that Hitler was a very good evolutionist. But I think
Keith was wrong anyway: Hitler, who assumed that there were Jewish and
"Aryan" racial essences that united all members of one race and
distinguished it from all members of other races, held a very anti-
evolutionary view in so doing. Hitler was no more an evolutionist
than any random dog or cattle breeder; he simply applied the same
ideas (very badly) to humans.
>
> Finally, while the evolutionary racism of Darwin's day as politically
> incorrect today, current biology textbooks still promote vestiges of
> racism. For example, in inherently racist recapitulation theory is
> not only common fare in pseudo science curricula but has been
> championed in our generation by such evolution luminaries as Carl
> Sagan.
>
Why is recapitulation (here, the idea -- associated with Haeckel
although it is doubtful that Haeckel ever advocated it -- that the
stages of individual development repeat the adult stages of ancestral
species) inherently racist? That would follow only on an ultra-
Lamarckian view of evolution: an evolutionary ladder with each
species, and each race of each species, on one particular rung,
further from the goal of evolution than the race just above it, and
closer than the race just below it. But even Lamarck did not hold
that every race or species was on a different rung, and Darwin and
those who came after him replaced the evolutionary ladder with an
evolutionary tree. The tree introduces two important ideas: different
races, or species, or higher taxa, can be equally evolved, but in
different directions, and that there is no necessary correlation
between "being more evolved" and being smarter, stronger, more
complex, or "better" in any global or absolute sense. Racism was
something imported into recapitulation; based on the assumption that
there had to be a "ladder of life" with white guys on the top, whether
the idea fit into evolutionary theory after Darwin or not. Note that
the evolutionary ladder, itself, was based on the late medieval
creationist _scala naturae_, the "ladder of creation," with each
species and race *created* on a particular rung of the ladder.
>
> This despite the fact that modern studies in molecular
> genetics have demonstrated the utter falsity of the recapitulation
> theory. The fact that recapitulation is inherently racist is
> underscored by no less an evolutionary authority than Stephen Jay
> Gould who lamented that "recapitulation provided a convenient focus
> for the pervasive racism of white scientists" in the modern era.
>
Well, yes, it did, in much the same way that the "curse of Ham" had
provided a convenient focus for racism to an earlier generation of
thinkers. But again, this was not an intrinsic feature of the idea,
but something imported into it by people who started out as racists
and sought to twist science into a support for their views (as their
ancestors had done with the Bible). Of course, the version of
recapitulation described above has been out of the textbooks for
generations, now: what is included is the idea that embryonic stages
of development recapitulate, to some extent, *embryonic* stages of the
development of ancestral species.
>
> If you think this is not correct; watch these evolutionists spew out
> their hatred now...
>
And if people hate your lies, does this somehow prove that they are
racists? Your reasoning escapes me.
>
> The Bible Answer Book, Hank Hanegraaff, Countryman Press, 2004
>
Hanegraaff, in a dedicated anti-evolution book, _The FACE that Reveals
the Farce of Evolution_, makes the comment, in passing, that "the
distance between a human being who can read and write and an ape is
the distance of infinity." He makes no mention of human beings who
cannot read and write, because they are too young, or mentally
handicapped, or belong to preliterate cultures. Read literally,
Hanegraaff's comment implies that those Tierra del Fuegans or
Australian aborigines so casually disparaged by Darwin were, in fact,
less than human, because none of them could read or write. Indeed,
Hanegraaff, at least as much as any Victorian evolutionist, assumes
that "fully human" means civilized, literate, and smart; he assumes
that to suppose, e.g. that members of one race are, on average, less
intelligent than members of another must be to question their very
humanity, as though human status and rights were awarded based on IQ
scores. Personally, I think that this is just because Hanegraaff has
not thought these points through carefully, but one could make a case
from his writings that "Creationism is the Basis of Racism."
-- Steven J.
Tiktaalik
<apobe...@hotmail.com> babbled:
> Evolutionism the Basis of Racism
>
> Racism is based on hate.
As promoted by the Bible. Cursed be Canaan etc.
> First, while not all evolutionists are racists. the theory of
> evolution is racist in the extreme. In his book 'The Descent of Man'
> Charles Darwin speculated, "At some future period, not very distant as
> measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost
> certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
> world."
His speculations being based on the treatment meted out to the savage
races by the "civilized", predominantly Christian, races encountered
by him in the course of his travels. Perceptive wasn't he? But of
course you knew that didn't you you lying hypocrite. You try to
mislead others by seeking to equate speculation with approval. Who
exterminated the Tasmanians and tried to do likewise with the
Australian aborigines, the Native Americans and, no doubt, many other
tribal peoples? Your precious Christofucks of course who made a career
out of slavery and genocide. So who were and are the real racists
fuckwit?
Remaining Lies For Schneezus snipped.
Tiktaalik
>
> read more ยป
I hate to rain on your parade after your going to so much trouble but
you are wasting your time trying to reason with this deranged
hypocrite who recognises only two opinions. His and the wrong one.
"I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the
way of a whole human being". (Abraham Lincoln).
SJAB1958
> Evolutionism the Basis of Racism
>
> Racism is based on hate.
>
> First, while not all evolutionists are racists. the theory of
> evolution is racist in the extreme.
[rant snipped for brevity]
Charles Darwin was a practising Christian and his racist views came
from his upbringing not from his theory.
Perhaps you werent aware, or maybe you choose to forget an event that
happened before the Beagle ever set sail with the young Darwin on
board.
It was the systematic slaughter of the Tasmanian natives by the white
European settlers who decided that they would take the land for
themselves.
They arranged hunts, shot the Tasmanians, and even left out poisoned
meat for them.
And what belief system did those white Europeans hold dear?
It wasnt evolutionary theory, it was Christianity.
RedFox
Apobetics <apob...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Evolutionism the Basis of Racism
>
> Racism is based on hate.
>
> First, while not all evolutionists are racists. the theory of
> evolution is racist in the extreme. In his book 'The Descent of Man'
> Charles Darwin speculated,
The problem with The Descent of Man is that racists seized upon it
Science however moved on to develop the theory of evolution
The racists who abused the Darwinian thesis to justify their political
activities were - of course - Christians - predominantly Catholics such as
Hitler
RedFox
<mtk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And - of course , the core racism - antisemitism is an intrinsic part of
Christian theology to this day - reinforced in Protestantism by the
ravings of the severely crazy monk Martin Luther
cactus
Tanach apparently.
Milan
"cactus" <b...@nonespam.com> wrote in message
news:P9ldi.4727$c06....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
The old testament is essentially a racist book through and through. I
mentioned an example from the gospels because I thought it would be too
obvious to use one from the old testament.
Here are a few:
Genesis
24:3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God
of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters
of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.
28:1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said
unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
Deuteronomy
23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the
LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the
congregation of the LORD for ever.
As Hartung (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/ltn01.html) says very well,
the bible is a blueprint of in-group morality. It contains instructions for
genocide, enslavement of out-groups, and world domination. This of course is
not unusual in primitive societies. The Iliad, the Icelandic Sagas, the
tales of the ancient Syrians and the inscriptions of the ancient Mayans,
for example, are similar in this respect. But, of course, no one is selling
the Iliad as a foundation for morality, whereas, incredibly, the Bible is
sold as a guide to how people should live their lives.
regards
Milan
Dave Oldridge
@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> Evolutionism the Basis of Racism
>
> Racism is based on hate.
>
> First, while not all evolutionists are racists. the theory of
> evolution is racist in the extreme. In his book 'The Descent of Man'
> Charles Darwin speculated, "At some future period, not very distant as
> measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost
> certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the
> world." In addition, he subtitled his magnum opus 'The Preservation
> of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.' Note: "Struggle" in
You do know that the term "races" in this title refers to what we now
term "subspecies" and that subsequent genetics has shown that there are
no real human subspecies, just one single species.
> English is the same as "Kampf" in German as in 'Mine Kampf" Adolf
> Hitler's manifesto upon which Nazism was built and millions of
> untermenchen (less than humans) were murdered to cleanse the Super
> race. Thomas Huxley, who coned the term agnostic and was the man most
Have you READ Mein Kampf. It has not one real reference to Darwin's
ideas but claims over and over that Hitler and his minions are doing
"God's work." Just as the entire SBC split from the rest of the Baptists
so long ago over the notion that black people from Africa were fit only
to be slaves to whites.
Errant Christian heresies have been involved in a whole lot more racism
than any group of evolutionary biologists. ICR founder, Henry Morris
expressly stated that he thought black Africans were CREATED to be
servants to superion white men.
You've been told all this before, yet you repeat your FALSE WITNESS.
We can only conclude that you would rather go to hell than admit and
abjure your error, therefore, as you wish, so it will be done unto you.
Do you understand this. ONLY by repenting and abjuring your stubborn
heresy can you enter God's kingdom. That's final. No amount of lies on
your part or excuses will be tolerated. Understand? (And don't try to
lie to me and say that you don't because I know that you do).
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
Lee
"Apobetics" <apob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182104384.8...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
here a post Victorian movement that made many mistakes interpreting
evolutionary theory. The Germans went over the top with that stuff and the
rest of the civilised world had to put a stop to their bizarre ideas as it
involved a lot of people being murdered. Hi there Pius Pope X11.
Most contempory scientist nomatter what their religious stance agree that
the genetic differences between races is insignificantly small.
When I was at college science was taught on a secular basis, special needs
people like Muslims were given time to air there marriage problems,
fortunately no other religions seemed to eat into the fascinating world of
physics, biology and chemistry, I like to think that was because there was a
theology class only a few metres down the corridor.
RedFox
<me@localhost> wrote:
> >
> Heck were are you getting your info from? You are talking about eugenics
> here a post Victorian movement that made many mistakes interpreting
> evolutionary theory. The Germans went over the top with that stuff and the
> rest of the civilised world had to put a stop to their bizarre ideas as it
> involved a lot of people being murdered. Hi there Pius Pope X11.
>
> Most contempory scientist nomatter what their religious stance agree that
> the genetic differences between races is insignificantly small.
>
> When I was at college science was taught on a secular basis, special needs
> people like Muslims were given time to air there marriage problems,
> fortunately no other religions seemed to eat into the fascinating world of
> physics, biology and chemistry, I like to think that was because there was a
> theology class only a few metres down the corridor.
absolutely - and in my previous post I was - of course answering the
original poster
"Apopleptic"
Not Lee
RedFox
<me@localhost> wrote:
> > For evolution to succeed,
Evolution is the name given to a process and not to an "aim"
Evolution does not have a "purpose" so it can neither succeed nor fail
You seem to be falling into the common American error of being opposed to
something without knowing what it is.
That is what causes deaths and casualties from "friendly fire"