Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Book Finds Missing Link Between Evolution, Racism
Christian Newswire ^ | 1/15/08 | Christian Newswire

Posted on 01/15/2008 4:32:43 PM PST by wagglebee

'Darwin's Plantation' Breaks New Ground in Study of Subject

Contact: Melany Ethridge, 972-267-1111

PETERSBURG, Kentucky, Jan. 15 /Christian Newswire/ -- Author Ken Ham and theologian Dr. A. Charles Ware take a groundbreaking look at one of the human race's greatest problems – racism – in "Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots." Along the way, they also tackle the questions of the origin of all the people groups, skin "color," and interracial marriage,

Ham is the president of Answers in Genesis and the new Creation Museum, ministries that uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. Ware is the president of Crossroads Bible College (training Christians to reach a multiethnic urban world) and a national leader in promoting multiethnic ministry.

With Darwin's birthday coming Feb. 12, and his 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of "On the Origin of Species" little more than a year away, the time seems right for an accurate assessment of his legacy.

Ham and Ware show that although racism certainly did not begin with Darwin, his beliefs did more to fuel racism than the ideas of any other single individual. "Racism is a consequence of sin in a fallen world infused with evolutionary thinking," Ham writes.

The subtitle of Darwin's "Origin of Species" is "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin himself writes in "The Descent of Man" that he would rather be descended from a monkey than a "savage."

Even Stephen Jay Gould, the late leading evolutionist, agreed that the publication of "Origin of Species" had a negative impact on the discussion of racial issues. "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory," he wrote.

Ham and Ware note that evolutionary theory made its way to American shores during the time of the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation (the 1860s).

"Without the legal ability to enforce slavery, many people turned to the theories of Darwin to justify racism in its many forms," the book says. "They began to use evolution as justification of their views that African-Americans were an inferior 'race' and a 'sub-species' that was not really fully human and not deserving of fair and equal treatment."

Ham, originally from Australia, studied environmental biology at the Queensland Institute of Technology. He notes that the remains of perhaps 10,000 Aborigines, some slaughtered as "specimens," were shipped to Britain to prove that they were the "missing link."

Perhaps most tragically, Hitler used evolutionary thought to justify his concept of a "master race" and the extermination of the Jews and other so-called "inferior" groups of people.

"As soon as one believes that human beings have evolved from creatures of lesser intelligence, it is an easy corollary to assume that some people groups are more evolved than others," the book says.

Ultimately, though, the book is not about assigning blame. Instead, it sets out a Biblical blueprint for harmonious race relations. In fact, with man's history of racial conflict, the authors say that "GRACE (God's Reconciliation At Christ's Expense) relations" provides a much better model than race relations. This concept mirrors the teaching found in a compelling exhibit inside the Creation Museum on the origin of the different people groups.

Ware adds: "'Darwin's Plantation' presents the scientific and Scriptural case for the origin of the so-called races and of their skin color and eye shapes, plus what the Scriptures teach about still-controversial issues like interracial marriage."

The authors paint a picture of a world where churches are multiethnic and interracial marriage is no longer a problem. How can this happen? According to this book, it can only happen when Christians accept the Bible's truth that there is only one race – the human race (Acts 17:26; Genesis 1).

Answers in Genesis is a biblical apologetics ministry which conducts more than 300 teaching meetings each year, hosts an award-winning Web site and produces the "Answers" radio program heard on more than 900 stations throughout the United States. The high-tech Creation Museum, which opened in May, has seen over 300,000 visitors in less than eight months of operation.

Crossroads Bible College is a Christian undergraduate institution in Indianapolis whose particular concern is to train men and women of many cultural and ethnic backgrounds for effective roles in Christian service.


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: bookreview; darwin; darwinism; eugenics; moralabsolutes; origins; racism; roots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
Racist eugenics is an integral component of Darwinism, it is a central component to the "religion" of the left, and in the past century this has caused more bloodshed than all of the wars, plagues, famines and murders in the history of the world combined.
1 posted on 01/15/2008 4:32:44 PM PST by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Ping


2 posted on 01/15/2008 4:33:06 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 230FMJ; 49th; 50mm; 69ConvertibleFirebird; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; An American In Dairyland; ..
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]


3 posted on 01/15/2008 4:33:30 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks for giving more evidence that evolution deniers are stuck on stupid.


4 posted on 01/15/2008 4:52:28 PM PST by shuckmaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

This from a man whose “museum” teaches that it is OK to have sex with your sister if she’s the only date you can find.


5 posted on 01/15/2008 4:56:46 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

I draw a very clear distinction between evolution (a debatable scientific theory) and Darwinism (a political movement with eugenic atheism at its core).


6 posted on 01/15/2008 4:57:02 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

“Thanks for giving more evidence that evolution deniers are stuck on stupid.”

LOL! As if any more evidence was needed. Racist! Hitler! It’s getting to where you can’t tell the libtards from the cretards without a program.


7 posted on 01/15/2008 5:02:20 PM PST by L98Fiero (A fool who'll waste his life, God rest his guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

8 posted on 01/15/2008 5:03:53 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Without the legal ability to enforce slavery, many people turned to the theories of Darwin to justify racism in its many forms," the book says. "They began to use evolution as justification of their views that African-Americans were an inferior 'race' and a 'sub-species' that was not really fully human and not deserving of fair and equal treatment."

Col 3:11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Christianity clearly teaches that all are equal before God. I guess someone who wanted racism needed something to justify it and found it in Darwinism.

9 posted on 01/15/2008 5:14:42 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

That doesn’t equate to what you wrote. That’s intentional misrepresentation on your part. The meaning is clear, you should be able to see it.


10 posted on 01/15/2008 5:28:35 PM PST by Bat_Chemist (The devil has already outsmarted every "Bright".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bat_Chemist

Did Cain marry his sister? Ken Ham rather strongly implies he did. I’m not aware of any such declaration in the Bible, and yet Ken Ham says it would be OK.

My question to Ken ham is whether it is OK to make up stuff that isn’t in the Bible and then lecture other people’s children about why it is OK.


11 posted on 01/15/2008 5:32:28 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: js1138

That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. That’s as blatant an attempt at topic changing as I’ve seen yet.

If you want to discuss the topic, why don’t you start a thread about it?


12 posted on 01/15/2008 6:20:45 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

bump


13 posted on 01/15/2008 7:22:57 PM PST by Bat_Chemist (The devil has already outsmarted every "Bright".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Ken Ham gave a talk at our church once. If I recall correctly, he does believe that Adam and Eve’s kids had to marry each other. Who else would they marry, I suppose. The earliest humans lived hundreds of years and were more pure, not yet prone to genetic disorders, etc., so at first they were allowed to marry close relatives. The prohibitions against incest did not occur until later in the Bible. At least according to Ham. I disagree with a lot of what he teaches. I’m just reporting what I remember about that particular issue.


14 posted on 01/15/2008 7:42:47 PM PST by Nea Wood (I'm not a bad Christian because I refuse to join you in giving other people's stuff away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Interesting.

For the record, I’ve always accepted natural selection as fact. I found the subject fascinating in school. But, yes, as the article points out, it’s obvious that eugenicists and racists of all kinds derive their theories from the theory of evolution. The Holocaust and euthanasia is what happens when natural selection is used (or misused) as a guide for life, without a belief in Natural Law or a moral guide.

Still, if people like Hitler truly wanted to live according to Darwin’s theory alone, they would never exterminate people nor frown upon intermarriage between groups. In survival of the fittest, variety is important. When the environment changes, the very traits that were a disadvantage in the previous environment can be an asset in the new environment.


15 posted on 01/15/2008 8:36:21 PM PST by Tired of Taxes (Dad, I will always think of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Physical, mental, and moral peculiarities go with blood and not with language. In the United States the negroes have spoken English for generations; but no one on that ground would call them Englishmen, or expect them to differ physically, mentally, or morally from other negroes." -- Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog" [Erik Trinkaus, Pat Shipman, The Neandertals pp 46-47]

16 posted on 01/15/2008 10:26:46 PM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________Profile updated Sunday, December 30, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: js1138

That’s like saying holocaust museums teach that it’s OK to exterminate Jews.


17 posted on 01/15/2008 10:30:42 PM PST by Sloth (I feel real bad for deaf people, cause they have no way of knowing when microwave popcorn is done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes
For the record, I’ve always accepted natural selection as fact. I found the subject fascinating in school. But, yes, as the article points out, it’s obvious that eugenicists and racists of all kinds derive their theories from the theory of evolution.

I no longer have the slightest interest in debated creation vs. evolution. I have NEVER seen anyone who is firmly on one side or the other change their mind on the subject, nor do I see any real value on debating something that either did or did not happen but cannot be concretely proven either way.

That being said, it is an historical FACT that the Darwin family used evolutionary theories to develop racist eugenics. I see evolution as one facet of Darwinism, but it is the eugenics aspect of Darwinism that is far more dangerous and destructive. It is without question that Hitler and Sanger were believers in eugenics in exactly the way that Galton and Leonard Darwin intended and while Galton and Darwin may not have openly called for the death of those they considered "inferior," it was a logical and predictable result.

18 posted on 01/16/2008 4:58:41 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The thread is about whether Ken Ham can even read, much less draw moral conclusions.

He does seem willing to read things into the Bible that aren’t there, and teach his fantasies to other people’s children as Biblical truth.


19 posted on 01/16/2008 6:00:08 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Well, I suppose that makes sense, since racism was invented in the mid 19th century. Before that, everybody just smiled on their brother and learned to love one another. [/S]


20 posted on 01/16/2008 6:06:29 AM PST by steve-b (Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. --RAH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

Really? Remind me which groups prior to the mid-19th century were advocating methods to curtail reproduction among blacks and other ethnic groups.


21 posted on 01/16/2008 6:41:36 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
"Who wrote the following" for 50, Alex:

"The great and rapidly increasing army of idiots, insane, imbeciles, blind, deaf-mutes, epileptics, paralytics, the murderers, thieves, drunkards and moral perverts are very poor material with which to "subdue the world," and usher in the glad day when "all shall know the Lord, whom to know aright is life everlasting." There are hundreds and thousands of men and women today to whom in the interests of future generations, some rigid law should say, "Write this one childless." Men and women whose habits of life are such as to curse their offspring, should be prohibited from marrying."

22 posted on 01/16/2008 8:43:48 AM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: atlaw

No one disputes the fact that some evangelical Christians advocated the eugenics movement, my guess is that a few decades before they would have also been using the Bible to justifly slavery.


23 posted on 01/16/2008 9:26:08 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I have NEVER seen anyone who is firmly on one side or the other change their mind on the subject, nor do I see any real value on debating something that either did or did not happen but cannot be concretely proven either way.

I changed my mind & I was once firmly on the other side of the issue. I grew up with books on evolution in my home. I remember laughing at the kids who brought up God in science class.

The danger with indoctrination is that it sometimes means it's necessary to shape "truth". After the one who'd been indoctrinated has been released, discovery of any messaged truth is almost like a light getting turned on. I've gone from skeptical, to wondering about what they fear. Heaven forbid, teachers allow students to question & think.

24 posted on 01/16/2008 10:04:04 AM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

I realized as soon as I hit the post button that someone was going to explain how and why they changed their mind.

What I should have said, is that I have never seen anyone change their mind publicly through the course of a debate on the topic here on FR.

I agree that there is a huge danger with indoctrination. Whether Darwin intended as such or not, the education system has latched onto evolution as a way to promote atheism.

But in the end, I still believe that eugenics and how it has been and continues to be used, is by far the most dangerous component of Darwinism.


25 posted on 01/16/2008 10:41:46 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Wagglebee,

In case you suspect I’m trying to make you believe in natural selection, let me assure you I’m not. Most (though not all) of the people on the Darwin team are my enemy, and I’m not interested in recruiting more members for them. ;-)

I agree that the entire eugenics movement originated with the idea of natural selection. But, judging from his writings, Darwin himself did not advocate eugenics. It doesn’t seem he ever suspected his work would be interpreted the way it was. (Admission: I read “Origin of Species”, but I’ve only heard and read “about” his other writings.) Still, the eugenicists and the Bell Curve crowd have marched on. What they’ve ignored is that Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” wasn’t measured in the terms they are applying. It was measured in terms of adaptation to one’s environment.

The study of genetics is another example of science being misused: Knowledge about genetics may help us fight disease, but the eugenics crowd have latched onto it. It also has led people to draw conclusions without solid scientific evidence that, for example, homosexuality is genetic.

As a side note, I’m glad to see a book written about Scripture that sets the record straight.


26 posted on 01/16/2008 11:51:47 AM PST by Tired of Taxes (Dad, I will always think of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I realized as soon as I hit the post button that someone was going to explain how and why they changed their mind.

I couldn't let you go away disappointed. ;o)

What I should have said, is that I have never seen anyone change their mind publicly through the course of a debate on the topic here on FR.

I've learned quite a bit from the "debates" about the issue. I learn better under fire than I do when I'm in an echo chamber. I had to knock some of the rust off some things that I learned decades ago to recognize the iron beneath the beliefs that I hold now.

I agree that there is a huge danger with indoctrination. Whether Darwin intended as such or not, the education system has latched onto evolution as a way to promote atheism.

Error is created by the belief that there is a neutral position, which is the way that people of faith have been dragged into supporting the hard core atheism that's become the norm in our education system. I fully understand the necessity of materialism in science, but science has always had philosophical underpinnings, where faith was allowed a voice that has been pushed out of the dialog.

But in the end, I still believe that eugenics and how it has been and continues to be used, is by far the most dangerous component of Darwinism.

Eugenics is actually contrary to true Darwinism, which rested upon natural selection, not manipulated selection. When man plays God, we could be selecting out needed traits. Take a look at societies that have made selections against females, resulting in an over abundance of spare young sexually frustrated males. (Islam & China) Too much of an imbalance & it's not a matter of whether or not blood will have to be spilled to restore a balance, but when.

27 posted on 01/16/2008 12:04:36 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

But at least they got an Ivy League prof (Gould) on their side.


28 posted on 01/16/2008 12:06:45 PM PST by junta (It's Poltical Correctness stupid! Hold liberals accountable for their actions, a new idea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
his beliefs did more to fuel racism than the ideas of any other single individual

That is blatant nonsense. Racism was the rule of the day and Darwin was merely a product of his times.

29 posted on 01/16/2008 12:07:01 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes
Still, the eugenicists and the Bell Curve crowd have marched on.

Have you read "The Bell Curve"?

30 posted on 01/16/2008 12:08:54 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

I wonder how many Freepers have agreed with “The Bell Curve.”

Or how many have condemned its author as a racist.


31 posted on 01/16/2008 12:09:16 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Probably a lot, just as a guess, but it is not a good plan to extrapolate a hundred posts to be representative of the population. Not only that but we don’t get to vote on science: either the theory explains all the data of nature or it isn’t a good theory.


32 posted on 01/16/2008 12:13:40 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes

As I’ve stated before, I consider evolution and eugenics (social Darwinism) to be two distinct components of Darwinism. It cannot be disputed that Francis Galton (Charles Darwin’s half cousin) and Leonard Darwin (Charles Darwin’s son) derived their eugenic theories from Darwin’s works. And it is from this movement that racists like Margaret Sanger and Hitler twisted it into evil and it certainly did not help that influential men like Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. embraced their theories.

Would Charles Darwin have supported this twisted agenda? Probably not, because what they set out to do was place artificial controls on what he considered to be a naturally occurring process and as you noted, it entirely removes adaptation from the equation.

As I’ve said, I have no interest in debating the various points of creationism vs. evolution. I am simply trying to point out that, despite Charles Darwin’s best intentions, his theories have been and continue to be used to promote a very evil and deadly agenda.


33 posted on 01/16/2008 12:17:53 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Racism was the rule of the day and Darwin was merely a product of his times.

Perhaps it was, but the idea that people of certain races should be exterminated and/or prevented from procreating certainly was not.

34 posted on 01/16/2008 12:19:46 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

True, that idea was born, like Communism, in America.


35 posted on 01/16/2008 12:23:09 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I wonder how many Freepers have agreed with “The Bell Curve.”

It was a dry, dusty tome that talked a lot about maximizing potentials, not about putting people into pigeon holes & justifying those put into pigeon holes with added limitations based on race.

36 posted on 01/16/2008 12:41:05 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes
agree with what you say...natural selection is NOT racism nor does it carry a political agenda....

human reaction to people and events is much more visceral than reading about Darwin....

we can believe that all people are good and have good values, but we don't believe it unless we find it to be absolutely true in our personal lives....

its one thing for the Busing proponents to make it a law that your or my kid has to travel to unfamiliar neighborhoods to attend school, many miles and hours from home, but to send their own kids to public school?.....never....witness all the nitwit phonies in Washington and their private schools for their "precious" children.... in their hearts they know its not safe for their kids to go to public schools...

knowing the violence that some in the black community are prone too, is it racist or is it wisdom to avoid black neighborhoods when you're alone or in a small group?

its also reasonable to assume that if a person is bright and finishes school and is a good citizen AND if that person marries someone similar...their children should by all accounts be bright as well ....

you take two drug addled people with dubious values ( of ANY race) and the kids are going to struggle.....

natural selection...

37 posted on 01/16/2008 12:44:03 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

So “The Bell Curve” differs from 19th century Christianity?


38 posted on 01/16/2008 12:46:29 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: js1138
So “The Bell Curve” differs from 19th century Christianity?

As with any kind of thinking, it can be used or misused.

One of the authors of the book died before it hit the bookstores. I caught the other author on CSpan before I bought the book. He talked about the learning that children are exposed to in their homes before they reach school age, while their brains undergo their maximum lifetime growth.

Cultures can either provide or deprive children of the kind of stimulus that can impact their lives for better or worse.

It's been years since I read the book, but I don't think it went into the genetics of race, which would be a pointless discussion. Arguing the superiority of one kind of culture over another, OTOH, is something that could improve the lives of some if it wasn't against the rules of PC to do so.

39 posted on 01/16/2008 1:10:39 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly

My point would be that the findings of science are not affected by their possible misuse, any more than the makers of guns are responsible for their misuse.

As for Darwin and racism, any honest person who reads about him would find that he argued against slavery at times and places where it caused him considerable personal inconvenience.

He probably believed that isolated groups of people could differ, as a group, in many kinds of abilities. In the abstract, I’m not sure there is a way to argue against that.


40 posted on 01/16/2008 1:19:53 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: js1138
My point would be that the findings of science are not affected by their possible misuse, any more than the makers of guns are responsible for their misuse.

I agree. As I said in post 27, "Eugenics is actually contrary to true Darwinism, which rested upon natural selection, not manipulated selection."

My position, when I've argued against current evolution instruction in schools has been against post-Darwinism, that which is currently taught in our nation's schools. Post-Darwinism is bad science. Whether misuse is done by theists or atheists matters less to me than misuse versus use.

As for Darwin and racism, any honest person who reads about him would find that he argued against slavery at times and places where it caused him considerable personal inconvenience.

I think Darwin was an agnostic, so use of him by atheists to promote their beliefs would be as much of a misuse of him (his work) as those who claim his theory has been responsible for eugenics.

He probably believed that isolated groups of people could differ, as a group, in many kinds of abilities. In the abstract, I’m not sure there is a way to argue against that.

Gasp! Back to political correctness reeducation camp for you.

41 posted on 01/16/2008 1:50:02 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: atlaw; wagglebee
So what if some unknown evangelical leaders supported that? Even though they were just going along with the flow of the current thinking of the day, they were wrong. So where was the outcry against thinking like that from the scientific community? Or the enlightened intellectuals of the day?

Oh right, they were busy starting the public school system and promoting abortion and racism, like Sanger and her contemporary thinkers.

Christianity in no way supports that kind of thinking, on the contrary....

Luke 14:12-14 Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a luncheon or dinner, do not invite your friends, your brothers or relatives, or your rich neighbors; if you do, they may invite you back and so you will be repaid. But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

Gal 3:28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Any casual reading of Scripture will find that those less fortunate than yourself are to be treated with special honor. No one is to mock deaf people or put stumbling blocks in the path of the blind and crippled.

42 posted on 01/16/2008 4:45:36 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Agreed 100%.

As for not changing a person’s mind, providing this information to people could change someone’s opinion, just as another FReeper here said. I know I was surprised to learn about Darwin’s son and family. I never knew about them until you mentioned them on this thread. And that information has given me a different perspective.


43 posted on 01/16/2008 7:11:16 PM PST by Tired of Taxes (Dad, I will always think of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cherry
agree with what you say...natural selection is NOT racism nor does it carry a political agenda....

Thanks. But wagglebee's point that the eugenics movement originated with the idea of a selection process can't be disputed, imho, even if Darwin himself didn't intend for his research to be taken in that direction.

knowing the violence that some in the black community are prone too, is it racist or is it wisdom to avoid black neighborhoods when you're alone or in a small group?

Given the crime statistics in predominately black communities that everyone hears about, I'd call it an understandable reaction.

its one thing for the Busing proponents to make it a law that your or my kid has to travel to unfamiliar neighborhoods to attend school, many miles and hours from home, but to send their own kids to public school?.....never....

I have a problem with the whole idea of government-run schools, with or without bussing. And, yes, so many politicians are hypocrites.

44 posted on 01/16/2008 8:15:58 PM PST by Tired of Taxes (Dad, I will always think of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
Have you read "The Bell Curve"?

Nope. I watched an interview with one of the authors when the book first came out. It was all I had to hear to know the book wasn't worth my time. But, I probably will assign the book - and its refutations - to my children for reading when they're old enough, just so they will be aware of those theories.

45 posted on 01/16/2008 8:43:29 PM PST by Tired of Taxes (Dad, I will always think of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale; wagglebee
Racism was the rule of the day and Darwin was merely a product of his times.

Do you believe that the people of that day had less of a moral or humanitarian compass?

46 posted on 01/16/2008 9:01:12 PM PST by Lijahsbubbe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes
But, I probably will assign the book - and its refutations - to my children for reading when they're old enough, just so they will be aware of those theories.

My son was given some of the refutations in one of his education classes. The Prof told him he should not read the book.

47 posted on 01/16/2008 9:12:06 PM PST by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
My son was given some of the refutations in one of his education classes. The Prof told him he should not read the book.

That's pretty funny. The best lesson probably would be to assign the original book and then tell the student to refute it in a written report.

48 posted on 01/16/2008 10:47:00 PM PST by Tired of Taxes (Dad, I will always think of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Lijahsbubbe

That is an interesting question. Part of the answer is that they did not have clear ideas of such things. We still don’t, of course, in fact nobody has a clue what to do and the closest similarity might be the time of Judges in the OT where everybody did what he thought best.


49 posted on 01/17/2008 9:13:07 AM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Oddly enough, Darwin's monogenic theory of common ancestry was in some respects less racist than the special creation theories of Louis Aggasiz it supplanted. Aggasiz was no proponent of Adam and Eve. He was a polygenist, holding that species more or less appeared in their present form where they were discovered. This meant that Africans, Amerindians, Asians, and Europeans were not necessarily part of the same species.

Louis Menand's The Metaphysical Club has more on this.

50 posted on 01/17/2008 11:03:38 AM PST by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson