I wanted to say I find it to be nonsense when I hear Non Muslims say Racism is dead i

[جوري]

The above is from this book!
http://books.google.com/books/about/Dark_vanishings.html?id=hwsUXs6ksXUC

 

[Independent]

Darwin's belief that some races (such as blacks) were inferior to others became so widely accepted

Many people used Darwin's ideas for their own ends. This is no more Darwin's fault than it is Wagner's that he became Hitler's favourite composer. But Darwin himself believed all mankind is one species, with differences that are overwhelmingly cultural in origin, not genetic:

'the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other....independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having inter-crossed...and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.'

 

[جوري]

Yes I've read the apologist manifesto just the same - doesn't change facts or attitudes since we've modern day scientists carrying on the same agenda and perpetuating racism as a scientific fact as I've demonstrated above from the DNA pioneer
So spare me just spare me- you're not conscious of something twenty minutes ago and then all of a sudden cone back a scholar on the intended psychology and agenda!

Best,

 

[Independent]

Yes I've read the apologist manifesto just the sam

I quoted Darwin's own words, not an 'apologist manifesto'.

You're just plain wrong because you rely on your own prejudices and you can't be bothered to check any more.

 

[جوري]

I quoted Darwin's own words, not an 'apologist manifesto'.

You're just plain wrong because you rely on your own prejudices and you can't be bothered to check any more.

rather you've select quoted!
the above that I've quoted it's also clear that Darwin despised slavery if I were selectively quoting as you I'd have left that portion out just the same!
Also I am far better read than you on Darwin for starters I didn't ask for proof then searched google to controvert it! Folks who are read usually know in advance not after!
One day perhaps you'll come to realize how transparent and see through you're!

Best,

 

[Independent]

I am far better read than you on Darwin for starters

Unfortunately not much of it seems to have sunk in.

rather you've select quoted!

I quoted Darwin's explicit words which tell us that he thought mankind is a single species - all of us.

You quoted another passage from Darwin in which tells he believes that civilised man will prosper and continue at the expense of uncivilised man in his 'wild' condition.

Not a different race. A different culture.

 

[جوري]

Unfortunately not much of it seems to have sunk in.

scatology has a way of floating rather than sinking in!

I quoted Darwin's explicit words which tell us that he thought mankind is a single species - all of us.

You quoted another passage from Darwin in which tells he believes that civilised man will prosper and continue at the expense of uncivilised man in his 'wild' condition.

Not a different race. A different culture.

Semantics.. you can believe that your 'single specie' has lesser 'uncivilized' members who due to their savagery will become extinct with time.. of course no one has problems believing that Darwin thought us a single specie, he already made the comparisons with us and animals as is- why is it so difficult to believe he'd include blacks on that evolutionary scale?

best,

 

[Independent]

scatology has a way of floating rather than sinking in!

Another random unattractive remark which doesn't seem to have any relevance.

of course no one has problems believing that Darwin thought us a single specie, he already made the comparisons with us and animals as is- why is it so difficult to believe he'd include blacks on that evolutionary scale?

Good - we're making progress. Now you agree that, unlike some people of his day, Darwin thought all men were fundamentally the same in terms of evolution - although very different in terms of culture.

If you were as well read as you so tiresomely tell us, you would also know that man is conspicuous by his near-absence in Darwin's On The Origin of Species.

 

[جوري]

Another random unattractive remark which doesn't seem to mean anything.

I suggest you look the words you don't know in the dictionary and take your remarks on syntax & grammar to the 'Education section'. I really couldn't give a fig as to which area you rate yourself of superior intellect!

Good - we're making progress. Now you agree that, unlike some people of his day, Darwin thought all men were fundamentally the same in terms of evolution - although very different in terms of culture.

I don't make progress with you. You're not even on the same stratosphere!

If you were as well read as you so tiresomely tell us, you would also know that man is conspicuous by his near-absence in Darwin's On The Origin of Species

Irrelevant to the topic in fact this entire post of yours as is the case with most of your posts is a complete waste of webspace!

It is a curious thing though that you didn't seem fazed at all by:

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

Everything is selective with you I guess or has a different meaning than what is patently obvious all together!

 

[White Rose]

While you guys are at it, I would like to say that what Darwin has done whether he was aware of it or not is to set a ground for excuses that humans can use to justify their short comings.

 

[Independent]

While you guys are at it, I would like to say that what Darwin has done whether he was aware of it or not is to set a ground for excuses that humans can use to justify their short comings.

I agree - and so would Darwin. It's not his fault he's not around to answer back. And it's not his fault if other people altered his ideas to justify racism, when in fact his message was the opposite - we're all the same under the skin. On this issue, Darwin's on your side.

 

[جوري]

I thought no one could speak for Darwin for he's dead! Today he's on her side?
What a curious person you're!

 

[White Rose]

I agree - and so would Darwin. It's not his fault he's not around to answer back. And it's not his fault if other people altered his ideas to justify racism, when in fact his message was the opposite - we're all the same under the skin. On this issue, Darwin's on your side.

Thing is, how come you are so sure about his intentions?

 

[Independent]

Thing is, how come you are so sure about his intentions?

Not so much his intentions, just what he wrote - as opposed to what people think he wrote.

His view was that modern man is essentially the same the world over from an evolutionary point of view and that the differences between people were relatively superficial (from a physical appearance point of view), or cultural (from a mental point of view). This approach has been built on and confirmed all the way down to the present day in the writings of guys like Jared Diamond who, inspired by Darwin, has done more than anyone I can think of to demonstrate the incredible intelligence and resourcefulness of so-called 'primitive' societies in Papua New Guinea and elsewhere. We are not one iota superior to those people in intellect.

Therefore, if you are anti racist, then you could find support for that view in Darwin. (Of course, if you don't accept evolution then that won't help you, but that's another matter.)

Other people took Darwin's work in another direction especially into eugenics, which had serious consequences, but Darwin is not those men.

 

[White Rose]

Not so much his intentions, just what he wrote - as opposed to what people think he wrote.

His view was that modern man is essentially the same the world over from an evolutionary point of view and that the differences between people were relatively superficial (from a physical appearance point of view), or cultural (from a mental point of view). This approach has been built on and confirmed all the way down to the present day in the writings of guys like Jared Diamond who, inspired by Darwin, has done more than anyone I can think of to demonstrate the incredible intelligence and resourcefulness of so-called 'primitive' societies in Papua New Guinea and elsewhere. We are not one iota superior to those people in intellect.

Therefore, if you are anti racist, then you could find support for that view in Darwin. (Of course, if you don't accept evolution then that won't help you, but that's another matter.)

Other people took Darwin's work in another direction especially into eugenics, which had serious consequences, but Darwin is not those men.

But as you have read, I also have read that he wanted to rebel against the religion his family taught him. So I can't be sure of his thought process just as you are. On the other hand, if he was anti racist and believed in what you wrote, well good for him.

 

[Independent]

But as you have read, I also have read that he wanted to rebel against the religion his family taught him.

Darwin lived a long life and his views changed during his life. He began as a conventional Christian, and ended it either agnostic or believing in a God, but only as First Mover. So it's possible to quote differing views from different stages of his life.

Darwin was very devoted to his wife who was a strong Christian. When he set out on his literal voyage of discovery on the Beagle he saw the wonders of nature as confirming the existence of a creative God. In time, his studies led him to a different conclusion. As a naturalist, he began to see the cruelties of nature as incompatible with his religion. Even tiny things in Nature shocked him. It was the fate of a breed of caterpillar, to serve as living food for its predator, that helped to tip the balance:

"I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."

Despite this, out of sensitivity for his wife's feelings, he recognised the implications of evolution for conventional Christianity and delayed publication of the Origin for the best part of two decades, until a rival drove him to commit to print. Even then, he was very reluctant to make any explicit connection with religion:

"...it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion."

Darwin was a devoted family man, sensitive to offending religious sensibilities, and ultimately a reluctant sceptic. He is most unfairly characterised in some quarters today as some kind of devil in human form. I could only wish that more men today were as fine as Darwin.

Sometimes I wonder if Darwin's name gets confused with Dawkins, who writes today about evolution and who is indeed very outspoken against religion.

 

[glo]

Thank you for sharing how Darwin's views changed during his life based on the experiences he had and discoveries he made.

Of course people change during their life times. We all do.

"...it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion."

I love this quote. It speaks of a gentle and caring man, who is concerned with not causing pain and distress to those who believe.
Again, thanks for sharing. It's something I had not heard before.

 

[Independent]

I love this quote. It speaks of a gentle and caring man, who is concerned with not causing pain and distress to those who believe.

I agree. This was made in reply to another writer, an atheist, who wanted to dedicate his book to Darwin - but Darwin refused for the reasons given above.

 

[glo]

Ever saw a black Mormon?

Funnily enough I just saw one on the mormon.org ad which keeps appearing at the top of the page. Ebele from Nigeria. Yesterday it was Shera Cheung from Hong Kong.

 

[White Rose]

Darwin lived a long life and his views changed during his life. He began as a conventional Christian, and ended it either agnostic or believing in a God, but only as First Mover. So it's possible to quote differing views from different stages of his life.

Darwin was very devoted to his wife who was a strong Christian. When he set out on his literal voyage of discovery on the Beagle he saw the wonders of nature as confirming the existence of a creative God. In time, his studies led him to a different conclusion. As a naturalist, he began to see the cruelties of nature as incompatible with his religion. Even tiny things in Nature shocked him. It was the fate of a breed of caterpillar, to serve as living food for its predator, that helped to tip the balance:

"I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."

Despite this, out of sensitivity for his wife's feelings, he recognised the implications of evolution for conventional Christianity and delayed publication of the Origin for the best part of two decades, until a rival drove him to commit to print. Even then, he was very reluctant to make any explicit connection with religion:

"...it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion."

Darwin was a devoted family man, sensitive to offending religious sensibilities, and ultimately a reluctant sceptic. He is most unfairly characterised in some quarters today as some kind of devil in human form. I could only wish that more men today were as fine as Darwin.

Sometimes I wonder if Darwin's name gets confused with Dawkins, who writes today about evolution and who is indeed very outspoken against religion.

Fair enough, people change but I really can't believe what you have presented. I like to see things from both perspective.I still see contradictions in what he himself wrote and I am glad you showed me this because I understand his psychology a little better now which ultimately led him to the theory of evolution. Its actually kind of funny coming from a person like him though I do admire his devotion towards his family.

Edit: Just remembered that I read that the reason why he delayed publishing his book was because he was afraid of the attacks he would receive, including physical.