The evolutionists and the communists both try to rewrite history inorder to hide the truth about their ideology.
I am so tired of this crap on Free Republic.
This crap article was posted days ago by crap spammer GGG.
Let it go people. Let it go.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Darwinism doesn’t absolutely require its adherents to be racist, but it has repeatedly tended that way.
Slavery was common in the ancient world, but it was a question of vanquishing your enemies, not of different races that were superior and inferior. “Race” was mostly a scientific theory of the nineteent century, and it fit right in with evolution.
It is common for Darwinists to distinguish themselves from Social Darwinists. But Social Darwinists certainly never saw it that way.
In the nineteenth century, “primitive” didn’t just mean culturally inferior. It also meant racially inferior.
Darwinists still automatically tend to think in those terms. If someone expresses religious beliefs, it means that he is backward, undeveloped, crude, not as far evolved up the tree of life as the superior Darwinists.
So we end up here with hucksters promoting greivances on a national scale in order to promote real live communism by way of economic disruption.
The term “race” as used in biology can have a different meaning than when used in everyday speech. It means subspecies. Thus there are races of flowers, races of dogs, etc. The original subtitle of Darwin’s first book (the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life) is often misinterpreted by laymen to be a reference to humans and therefore an affront to decency. It is neither.
Darwin was an ardent abolitionist who opposed forced eugenics. This article quotes him selectively and completely out of context.
I still have yet to meet a Darwin critic here who can define the word evolution.
I happen to believe Darwin was a racist. That does not imply anything about the truth or falsehood of his theories. Alfred Russel Wallace, who conceived natural selection independently, was an anti-racist. So I guess evolution is false because Darwin was a racist, and it is true because Wallace was anti-racist.
We wouldn’t refute Jefferson by pointing out he owned slaves. We wouldn’t refute the theories of Newton by pointing out he was a religious crackpot. Say what you want about Darwin, but please, use some basic logic.