Racist Darwin ?

Here are the facts of history as we know them. Anyone can certainly disagree, but unless you have a source your view is subjective and unsupported.1. Darwin, contrary (and remarkably) to the rampant atheism in his family, began life as a Christian. He held a degree in theology and intended to become a country vicar.2. While on board the Beagle he admits in his Autobiography that he more or less held the Bible as literal truth. Eldredge, in "Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life" (2005) establishes Darwin a Paleyan Creationist during this period of his life, that is, the early Beagle years.3. "Darwin abandoned Christianity in the two years after his return to England....in part this was caused....by his discovery of the invalidity of the argument from design" (Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought 1982:402).4. In 1837 Darwin makes first known sketch of his "Tree of Life". UWE Bristol - Error 404 : Page not found : /fas/wavelength/wave21/darwinb.jpgI can list as many scholars as anyone may like, saying: the Tree of Life or Darwin's Notebook writings during the late 1830s = Materialism.Thesaurus.comThe above Roget's Thesaurus link substantiates that "materialist" and "agnostic" and "atheist" are all SYNONYMS.5. However, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition) the term "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, 30 years after Tree of Life sketch, and 10 years AFTER Origin of Species was written and published.6. Darwin became an atheist during the late 1830s.7. God is rejected as Creator as is special creation.8. Darwin deemed the Fuegians "the lowest form of humanity on earth....In 1838 while struggling to understand how evolution worked, Darwin's thoughts returned to the Fuegians and their apparent similarity to primates in the London Zoo" (Larson 2004:67). This is the origin of human evolution, after the theory was conceived and the first drawing of the Tree of Life by Darwin in 1837. Professor Larson, is, of course, an evolutionist.Jonathan Wells: The only evidence for human evolution during Darwin's life was "similarity to living apes" (inexact quote, can retrieve exact quote upon request).In sequence, God is rejected as Creator THEN Darwin sees "similarity" and makes racist correspondence. We know Darwin was openly racist and we know Origin was written to say Paley's God is not responsible for the appearance of design seen in nature. In a rare moment of honesty, Talk Origins admits: CA005.1: Darwin's racismI own a copy of all books mentioned in this topic. Didn't know any of this ? I am not surpised. The paucity and scarcity of "genuine" hominid missing links coupled with the facts layed out here = why human evolution can be dismissed as the needs of atheism. Its racist origin demonstrates the high moral ground of Creationism.RayEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

The last five mentioned are your additions.A believer is extemely generic in that it can describe anyone who believes anything, including, of course, evolution.We know your "expertise" is very limited....to things that could never influence the opinion of any ordinary person because no one understands what you are talking about. IOW, biology knowledge is useless unless one can make ordinary persons understand. There are not two sets of biology facts.... there is one. I can explain the facts to anyone and have a decent chance to influence their understanding. You are completely ignorant of history and the context of the evolutionary paradigm, and are thus doomed to a frustrated existence of making embarrassing posts like the one I am responding to.You could prove me wrong by explaining the meaning of your post in lieu of the fact that most of it was made-up, or contributing something comparable to your intellectual reputation. If not, we can view your "contribution" as a rant caused by the inability to refute.Ray

According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, "agnostic" and "atheist" are synonyms. This further supports Roget's.Ray

The last five are now aqua colored. I agree that "skeptic" is the main entry - never denied. Where are the last five ? Like I said they are your additions. Yes, that is what Roget says. Look, I have a source, and I used it. Webster's Third New International Dictionary (2002) says "agnostic" (main entry) and "atheist" are synonyms.Are you saying "materialist" and "agnostic" and "atheist" are NOT synonyms ? The only problem with this group of three is the middle word.There is ONE definition of "agnostic" and several reportive understandings. If you want to discuss these meanings then please indicate. Where are the five WK ? Now, you are admitting they are synonyms of a synonym. Are they grouped together like the three ? Why don't you just paste them and the link and we will take a look ?You are able to dissect complicated scientific arguments written in technical journals, yet you are unable to connect and identify three no brainer synonyms.Ray

Yes, and the recordings are validated by the scholars who produced the source. Of course. You are touching on what scholars call the reportive and stipulated definitions of words.Reportive is what anyone thinks a word means. Stipulated is self-evident - to stipulate a meaning. Prolong use could replace reportive or etymological meaning. Actually, I do not want to debate the meaning of "agnostic" (disregard previous comment in prior post). I know what it means and I know what Huxley intended it to mean when he stipulated its definition. My forthcoming paper will prove that agnostic and atheist are absolute synonyms.Ray

The OP facts say that human evolution was an idea conceived AFTER God as Creator was rejected. Everyone agrees that Darwin was openly racist - even Talk Origins. In order to reduce the sting they whitewash the fact by saying "so was everyone else".I agree and I don't care. The OP proves the only point I have made and want to make: human evolution was conceived AFTER God was rejected as Creator. The racist eyes of Darwin were then used to answer the question of human origins. There is no way around it: gutter racism was relied upon and it was the only "evidence" for human evolution in the 19th century. Imagine that, the resemblance of dark skinned peoples and apes, things you might expect a skin head to say, was the "intellectual" foundation of the secular answer to human origins. The OP proves Darwin was an atheist and a racist. This fact is not harmed by your substanceless (and expected) denial. Charles Darwin (Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co.) p.178.

​

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, 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 civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla"

​

Darwin's bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley ("Lay Sermans, Addresses and Reviews" (New York: Appleton, 1871) p. 20:

​

"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 prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, 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." We know Darwin and Huxley were best of friends and Hux was the mouthpiece of Darwin's camp. We conclude atheism by what a person writes and argues. The Origin thesis was hereterical materialism = argument of an atheist. Darwin was a Christian first, then he became a materialist and atheist. The only thing that matters is that he wasn't a Christian. I have no desire to hammer him an atheist EXCEPT when ignorant persons assert him a Christian. What is your point - I don't get it ? I make no distiction. Dr. Scott calls this "attempting to paint ones black a lesser shade of gray".The KKK are Creationists and Nazi's are Evolutionists - what is your point ? My point is that the ORIGIN of human evolution idea came after God was rejected as Creator and a racist mind was then needed to answer the question. Smith, by his own admission, is a Wells IDist.IF human evolution was based on tangible scientific facts, then why did Darwinian curators, as late as 1919, erect such an obscene display ?Human evolution is based on racism = what happens when God is rejected.RayEdited by Herepton, : minor grammar

Dr. Gene Scott: Newton was a slaver. His ship was caught in a storm just off the African coast. He cried out to God for forgiveness....and, after making it safely to shore he let his human cargo go free....then he penned the most famous words of the most famous hymn of the Church...."Amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me...."Ray

Straight denial of what is written and supported by facts.Why would a Darwinist (WK) imply that Charles Darwin, the founder of ToE, did not reject the main tenet of Creationism (God is Creator) ?The Tree of Life sketch (1837, Eldredge 2005) is visual materialism = God is rejected as Creator. Then in 1838 Darwin is already seeing the "similarity" between Fuegians and apes in the London zoo (Larson). The OP said this and you have acted like it is not there. The ToE denies the existence of God in nature = its main assertion. Now you are acting like the main assertion does not exist. We know you do not really believe Darwin's agnostic claim, but you have no way of denting my arguments except by taking quotes out of context. Darwin's quote above was made to alleviate the suffering of his Christian wife and friends. We know Darwin was an atheist since 1837 based on his writings and arguments. I suppose Mayr is qualified to provide the scientific evidence of modern populational thinking but he is unqualified to identify an atheist ?EDIT START MAJOR CONTENT ADDITION:The last Mayr comment was made in the context of an uncited quote. Here is the quote of Mayr identifying Darwin's worldview that he held in the late 1830s: [sic] ""materialist" (more or less equivalent to an atheist" (Mayr, One Long Argument 1991:75) Now the previous sentence about Mayr makes sense.Next Item: Your Darwin quote WAS NOT written with his wife and friends in mind, rather it was written to an inquiring person of whom Darwin did not want to offend, assuming that the person was a believer of some type. The time frame was well after he had already adopted the Agnostic label and he simply stuck to the title. This time frame was after Descent was published - a brazen atheistic thesis. Again, a person is as they argue and not as they label themself if the two contradict.Go here and read your quote AND OTHERS in context, and see Darwin's "fluctuations". The same are conducive with his lifelong pattern of not wanting to offend or confront believers. As much as this is true, his scientific works did exactly that, unless, of course, we are naieve and the entire Creation-Evolution debate is all one big misunderstanding.http://pages.britishlibrary.net/.../letters/letters1_08.html "I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot spare time to answer your questions fully,”nor indeed can they be answered. Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."Words of an atheist by any objective rendering MADE AFTER your "never and atheist" quote. Like I said, Darwin treaded softly sometimes for the benefit of persons that may have been a believer. "In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications" (Mayr 1991:75)Sorry for my previous errors.END MAJOR CONTENT ADDITION AND EDITLogically, a person (Darwin) is as they argue and not as they label themself if the two contradict. In 1871 Darwin wrote Descent of Man - the arguments of a hardcore atheist asserting mankind descended from baboons. The conclusion says Man imagined and thus invented the idea of God = obscene denial of God. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/...ts/descent/descent21.html

​

"The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the
greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man
and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to
maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the
other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be
universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man's
reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of
imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed
instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument
for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be
compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant
spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in
them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a
universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of
man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."If mankind's origin from apes is not atheistic THEN what is the atheist scenario ? Will the answer come "we have none ?" You support ToE because it agrees with your worldview (atheist). Darwin was an atheist scientist attempting to cope in a theist dominated world = explanation of agnostic quotes.We also know that the ToE is supported by ALL atheists then and today = Darwin was an atheist. Atheists would not support if Darwinism was anything about supporting God.The point is that you (an atheist) have been psychologically forced to deny Darwin's atheism based on an insight that sees this necessity = the same exact reason that motivated Huxley to invent the agnostic coinage in the first place. Dr. Scott (context of Huxley coining the word "agnostic": "...to escape the stigma and abuse of being an atheist in a theist controlled world".RayEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.Edited by Herepton, : major content addition

The following text is the edit clearly marked in my previous post - Ray.EDIT START MAJOR CONTENT ADDITION:The last Mayr comment was made in the context of an uncited quote. Here is the quote of Mayr identifying Darwin's worldview that he held in the late 1830s: [sic] ""materialist" (more or less equivalent to an atheist" (Mayr, One Long Argument 1991:75) Now the previous sentence about Mayr makes sense.Next Item: Your Darwin quote WAS NOT written with his wife and friends in mind, rather it was written to an inquiring person of whom Darwin did not want to offend, assuming that the person was a believer of some type. The time frame was well after he had already adopted the Agnostic label and he simply stuck to the title. This time frame was after Descent was published - a brazen atheistic thesis. Again, a person is as they argue and not as they label themself if the two contradict.Go here and read your quote AND OTHERS in context, and see Darwin's "fluctuations". The same are conducive with his lifelong pattern of not wanting to offend or confront believers. As much as this is true, his scientific works did exactly that, unless, of course, we are naieve and the entire Creation-Evolution debate is all one big misunderstanding.http://pages.britishlibrary.net/.../letters/letters1_08.html "I am much engaged, an old man, and out of health, and I cannot spare time to answer your questions fully,”nor indeed can they be answered. Science has nothing to do with Christ, except in so far as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."Words of an atheist by any objective rendering MADE AFTER your "never an atheist" quote. Like I said, Darwin treaded softly sometimes for the benefit of persons that may have been a believer. "In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications" (Mayr 1991:75)Sorry for my previous errors.END MAJOR CONTENT ADDITION AND EDITEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.Edited by Herepton, : minor grammar

http://www.cojoweb.com/ref-agnostic.html Atheists and Agnostics are synonyms which supports my previously cited sources.Ray

Very little difference between an atheist and agnostic. My point is that an agnostic is attempting to carve out a position of impartiality that we know does not exist. His atheistic views do not match his agnostic label.Ray

You are able to discern complicated scientific arguments but unable to identify an atheist ? If the former is true (difficult) then the latter must be true (easy by comparison). The real question is why are you suddenly playing dumb ? Answer: Because everyone knows you are locked in disussion with a Creationist and that your "position" is really not your position, if your position was genuine there would be at least 10 other atheists beating down the doors to get included in this discussion and find out why an atheist is attempting to say Darwin wasn't an atheist.IF what I wrote is NOT true then this mandates genuine ignorance on your part, but this is falsified by your known reputation, which then makes the paragraph above all the more true.BUT, for the sake of argument, we know Darwin was an atheist by what he wrote and argued and theorized (Materialism). Logic demands a person is as they argue, and not as they label themself, if the two contradict.I asked before and did not get an answer, so I ask again:Question: What is the origin scenario for the atheist worldview if common ancestry (includes apes morphing into men) is not ?Will an answer come, saying, "we have none" ?Ray

double post - my mistake.Ray
Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Creationists have one too....according to you guys. We know the atheist conspiracy is not hidden and in the open. The least educated (Media) accept your dogma without question and deny access to the microphone Taliban style. Its quite all right since we know the success of Darwinism is caused by the wrath of God for denying Him Creator credit. Overwhelmingly corroborated by the fossil record showing no signs of intermediacy. [Both are synonyms and postulate that God is a product of the brain which is a product of material phenomena.]If logic is not abandoned - then yes, of course. All we need to do is explain their (TEists) belief about themself (Christian).I do not understand the furor over Judge Jones. The Darwinian Judge ruled as expected. Jones THINKS he is a Christian. His actions betray an atheist. His belief about himself is explained by the Bible (Judas kissing Jesus = typological claim of truth, which Jones perfectly fulfills). Jesus said Judas was a son of the devil from the beginning. Jones belief about himself is now explained. True Christians die for the Bible (Reformation) or at least defend it - logical test for true Christianity don't you think ? Any "Christian" who sides with the AtheistCLU is explained by the Judas syndrome. I asked WK what is the origin scenario that atheists subscribe to IF apes morphing into men and common ancestry is not ?WK reply = weasel words. All atheists support ToE for obvious reasons. You defend ToE tooth and nail = you have perjured yourself.I am quite happy to make you renounce everything that you stand for, but like I said, we know you are not serious or there would be many persons confronting you. Either way I have manhandled you with invulnerable logic and argument.EvC member Brian, Dawkins, Dennett, Ed Wilson, Kai Neilson, Richard Lewontin are the only atheists I know (off hand) that admit the obvious.Since I know you are clowning the debate and spamming it with shameless nonsense, caused by the inability to refute, you do not deserve any more of my time. I realize this might be quite unsatisfying, therefore, in fairness, you may post one last message.Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist

Science has always recognized God. You mean Scientism - the religion of Darwinism. Interesting insight - makes sense. The ultimate "irony" is, of course, that during the 1940s (biology synthesis) the selectionists were finally able to convince their brothers that natural selection was the only mechanism for change, while the Nazi's (Darwinists) were acting like apes and selecting the Jews for extinction.Ray Edited by Herepton, : No reason given.