Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.
This is the only accurate thing that you have said so far. You are correct; the theory of evolution neither supports nor advocates against racism, just as the theory of gravity neither supports nor advocates against flying in airplanes. The theory of evolution is, at most, a description of what happens in the world. It is not a prescription of how people should organize their lives or their societies.
-
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.
Except that it hasn't. It has been explained that before that only the fake history believed by creationists support their views. In real history, there were creationists who were racists and there were evolutionists who were racists, and they both used the explanatory frameworks available to them to explain what they thought were racist truths.
-
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.
No. It is true that the theory of evolution is not antithetical to racism. This was acknowledged, and then the discussion moved on to whether the theory of evolution supports racism. This is not goalpost moving. Goalpost moving would be moving on the question of whether the theory of evolution supports racism while pretending we were still discussing the original question.
-
They're not here to learn, but to propagandize and insult; I've see enough of that.
Seems that you are not entirely innocent of this yourself, Mr. Pot.
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in
The Chronicle Review)