Book Finds Missing Link Between Evolution, Racism

Christian Newswire ^ | 1/15/08 | Christian Newswire

[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.

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.

[metmom]

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.

[Tired of Taxes]

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.

[Tired of Taxes]

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.

[Tired of Taxes]

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.

[Lijahsbubbe]

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?

[GoLightly]

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.

[Tired of Taxes]

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.

[RightWhale]

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.

[Dumb_Ox]

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.

[Oztrich Boy]

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

Anyone can draw moral conclusions - Ken's just tend to the goofy