Pretty obvious answer if you ask for my opinion, read article below:
[PIE]Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
March 2004 - 3[4]:12-R
In the News: Was Darwin a Racist?
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D.
Printer version | Email this article
The title itself evokes an emotional response that spans the spectrum. Some view Charles Darwin’s famous opus, The Origin of Species, as a negative turning point for human society; others revere it as practically sacrosanct. While both the author and the book have become historical icons, few people likely are aware of the full title of Darwin’s most famous work: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection—or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The Oxford English Dictionary denotes that, historically speaking, the term “race” referred to a group of persons, animals, or plants connected by common descent or origin—in other words, similar to the way it is used today.
While many have argued that Darwin himself was not a “racist” (referring specifically to the fact that The Origin of Species did not include much discussion about Homo sapiens), his second book left little question about his personal views. Titled The Descent of Man, one entire chapter was dedicated to “The Races of Man.” In that book, Darwin wrote:
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).
While some have argued that Darwin was simply “predicting the future,” the chapter on human races makes painfully clear his beliefs on the subject. For instance, a few pages later in chapter seven, he noted:
Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes.
While Darwin may have maintained an outward concern for social justice, Thomas Henry Huxley, a close personal friend of Darwin’s and an indefatigable champion of evolution (who frequently referred to himself as “Darwin’s Bulldog”) observed:
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, p. 20).
The point is obvious: if man evolved, then so did the various races. But more than that, Darwin and Huxley argued further that the “caucasian” race was farther along in the evolutionary process, and thus superior to all the other races.
However, evolutionists do not exactly revel in the thought of being associated with racism (which is one reason that the title of Darwin’s Origin of Species book has been truncated). Most would argue that these views are ancient, and are simply reflections of the culture of that age. Yet the stigma of an “inferior race” took root, and has from time to time continued to spring up in the literature. More than fifty years after Darwin released The Origin of Species, Henry Fairfield Osborn remarked:
The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters such as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens (1980, 89:129).
The most recent addition in this evolutionary theory of human races comes from two prominent scientists—Vincent Sarich (one of the founding pioneers of the molecular clock) and Frank Miele (senior editor of Skeptic magazine). Robert Proctor reviewed their 2004 book, Race: The Reality of Human Differences, in the February 5, 2004 issue of Nature. The first six words of his review were: “This is a very disturbing book” (2004, 427:487). Disturbing indeed! The authors categorized people according to race, thereby reinforcing the contemporary ideas of racial hierarchy. How many individuals have ever stopped to fully grasp the true extent of evolutionary beliefs? And yet, the foundations for this racist thinking are being taught in classrooms all across the country. The Bible is clear—God created simply the human race—not a multiplicity of races.
REFERENCES
Darwin, Charles (1874), The Descent of Man (New York: A.L. Burt Co.), second edition.
Huxley, Thomas H. (1871), Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York: Appleton).
Osborn, Henry Fairfield (1980), “The Evolution of the Human Races,” Natural History, 89:129, April; reprinted from Natural History, 1926.
Proctor, Robert N. (2004), “Racial Realities or Bombast?,” Nature, 427:487-488, February 5.
Probably. Just about everybody sharing his time and culture were.
So it would be safe to assume that the biggest motivation for Darwins theories was his arrogance in trying to prove how superior/evolved his race is to others?
So it would be safe to assume that the biggest motivation for Darwins theories was his arrogance in trying to prove how superior/evolved his race is to others?
No it would not.
There is natural calamity amd the trees grow a little taller than before. The animals with the longer necks survive and those with shorter necks die.
The local animals evolve longer necks.
Do you believe that a racist Darwin means the above is false?
Yes it would, and secondly - Do you guys not feel ashamed by trying to justify his racism? Be realistic, if that was how it was back then, then obviously those people don't deserve to have credit at all. It shows the filth that they was.
So it would be safe to assume that the biggest motivation for Darwins theories was his arrogance in trying to prove how superior/evolved his race is to others?
No. There is no evidence that that was part of his 'motivation' at all, let alone the biggest part of it. Although Darwin was obviously wrong in his interpretation of how his theory had operated in this particular instance, and that interpretation may well have been culturally (racism) influenced, the theory itself is unaffected if that interpretation is ignored.
format_quote Originally Posted by Md Mashud
Yes it would, and secondly - Do you guys not feel ashamed by trying to justify his racism? Be realistic, if that was how it was back then, then obviously those people don't deserve to have credit at all. It shows the filth that they was.
It is not a case of being ashamed of or 'justifying' anything; in a past culture where most people are racist to some degree or other (that racism being based primarily on ignorance) you cannot judge one member of that society for accepting the values of his culture and not yours. The Greek city states and Roman Empire embraced slavery, as have many subsequent cultures - nobody condemns every member of those cultures as 'filth', nor sees it as reason to ignore their intellectual and artistic achievements. Moral standards change over time, and societies change.
What are you implying? Whatever it is its wrong. Past culture/future culture whatever, racism exists in masses - you can't say there was more in the past or future - You just don't know. There is just more restriction on freedom these days, doesnt mean now the societies have become MORE Understanding or somthing, thats just pie in the sky.
Darwin's theories were based on his research in the animal kingdom, not on the human race. Ignoring his findings on the basis of his racial opinions is like ignoring Einstein because he had bad hair. Yes, Darwin was more than likely a racist, but his scientific research is sound.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
No. There is no evidence that that was part of his 'motivation' at all, let alone the biggest part of it. Although Darwin was obviously wrong in his interpretation of how his theory had operated in this particular instance, and that interpretation may well have been culturally (racism) influenced, the theory itself is unaffected if that interpretation is ignored.
How about his ideas that "negroes" are inferior to Europeans? Is that scientific? is that not evidence enough? How was comparing races and trying to prove why the European race is superior then the "Negros" therefore adding to racism scientific? He is just giving those who follow his "THEOIRIES" (not facts, THEORIES ) reasons to be arrogant and making it seem its natural for the enferior race to suffer while the superior race prospers...
Last edited by InToTheRain; 04-30-2007 at 05:15 PM.
Darwin's theories were based on his research in the animal kingdom, not on the human race. Ignoring his findings on the basis of his racial opinions is like ignoring Einstein because he had bad hair. Yes, Darwin was more than likely a racist, but his scientific research is sound.
You cant be Christian and an evolutionist at the same time.
salaam
[49.13] O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).
w/salaam
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
) reasons to be arrogant and making it seem its natural for the enferior race to suffer while the superior race prospers...
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks