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 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 by thoughts and not by bites. Lectures and Lay Sermons (1926:115).
"In 1919 the Brooklyn Zoo exhibited an African American caged alongside chimpanzees and gorillas" (Professor Huston Smith, Why Religion Matters 2000:17).
"He was first displayed in the anthropology wing at the 1904 St. Louis World's Fair with other pygmies as 'emblematic savages' along with other 'strange people' The exhibit was under the direction of W J. McGee of the Anthropology Department of the St. Louis World's Fair. McGee's ambitions for the exhibit were to "be exhaustively scientific in his demonstration of the stages of human evolution. Therefore he required 'darkest Blacks' to set off against 'dominant whites' and members of the 'lowest known culture' to contrast with 'its highest culmination'" (Bradford and Blume, 1992, pp. 94-95). The exhibit was also extremely popular and 'attracted considerable attention' (Verner, 1906a, p. 471). The pygmies were selected because they had attracted much attention as an example of a primitive race. One Scientific American article said:
"The personal appearance, characteristics, and traits of the Congo pygmies... [conclude they are] small, apelike, elfish creatures, furtive and mischievois, they closely parallel the brownies and goblins of our fairy tales. They live in the dense tangled forests in absolute savagery, and while they exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies, they possess a certain alertness, which appears to make them more intelligent than other negroes.
... The existence of the pygmies is of the rudest; they do not practise agriculture, and keep no domestic animals. They live by means of hunting and snaring, eking this out by means of thieving from the big negroes, on the outskirts of whose tribes they usually establish their little colonies, though they are as unstable as water, and range far and wide through the forests. They have seemingly become acquainted with metal only through contact with superior beings . . ." (Keane, 1907, pp. 107-108).
One of the books on my list for the sceptics book club is The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection by Ronald Fisher in 1930. Fisher is considered one of the founders of modern statistics and one of the fathers of the neo-Darwinian Synthesis in the 1930s that linked the Darwin's ideas about natural selection with Mendel's ideas about character segregation and assortment....It is interesting that Dawkins in the Selfish Gene awards Fisher the distinction of being "the greatest biologist of the 20th century".
In isolation, Fisher's final sentence is not clear. But in the preceding context it cannot be doubted that he is advocating eugenics. The Nazi holocaust commenced less than ten years after the publication of Fisher's book. Closer to home the implementation of forced sterilization in Alberta can be directly attributed to the credibility and authority that Fisher brought to the concept of eugenics in 1930."
Professor of History Edward J. Larson (evolutionist) writing in "Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientifc Theory" 2004:66,67:
"Darwin's conceptual breakthrough came in 1838, after he began considering the case of human evolution....during the "Beagle" expedition...he encountered the native peoples of Tierra del Fuego, who he deemed 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.
.....links between humans and animals pepper his private notebooks throughout 1838. [Larson quoting Darwin] 'Let man visit orangutan in domestication, hear expressive whine, see its intelligence....not understanding language of Fuegian, puts [them] on par with Monkeys....FORGET the use of language, & judge only by what you SEE Compare, the Fuegian & Orangutan, & dare to say difference is so great'"([them] in original; caps mine - R.M.)
The evidence above says Darwin based human evolution on certain human beings resembling living apes. Darwin has forsaken God, the Bible and his Christian faith: he is apostate and in this context he then sees the "true" origin of mankind.
Adrian Desmond & James Moore "Darwin" (1991:10):
"'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start - Darwinism was invented to explain human society."
"Commonweal" magazine, March 9, 2007
"The Not-So-Gentle GIANT Selling & Sanitizing Darwin [by] Peter Quinn"
"For the second edition of 'Descent of Man' (1874), Darwin "added...Galton's eugenic theories and Herbert Spencer's 'survival of the fittest' social philosophy...calling Galton's treatise 'remarkable' and Spencer 'our greatest philsopher'."
Eugenics, of course, was a theory invented by Francis Galton, first cousin of Charles Darwin. In 1912, Major Leonard Darwin (son of Charles) addressed the First Intenational Congress of Eugenics in London. Leonard Darwin believed eugenics would be "a substitute for religion" and conveyed that his father agreed that society should encourage breeding among its best and "prevent it among the worst" (Quinn; page 9).
Darwinism and evolution was born in Darwin's racist mind after he rejected God as Creator. As late as the 1920s, Darwinists were caging Africans as "evidence" of human evolution, when were told said claim was based on scientific evidence. If true, why did they cage Africans? Ronald Fisher, the "great geneticist" who is credited with the modern genetical theory was a racist and a promoter of eugenics, as was Darwin's son. Darwin's cousin, of course, invented eugenics based on his evolution theory.
Jar's topic here shows the world how deluded or how brazen evolutionists are in denying the racist foundation of evolutionary theory.
"In 1933 Karl Pearson retired as Galton Professor of eugenics at University College and Fisher was appointed to the chair as his successor."
Ronald Fisher, according to Richard Dawkins, was Darwin's greatest successor. But he had no degree in biology nor any graduate degree. He was also a gutter racist and, of course, the chief architect of the genetical theory of evolution that swept biology in the 1930s.
Since this topic denies the racist foundation of evolutionary theory the same is quite conducive with lying.
We know Darwin was openly racist as was Huxley. Darwin's cousin invented eugenics theory based on the Origin thesis and implications. Leonard Darwin (Darwin's son) addressed a eugenics meeting in London and told the delegates that his Father would have approved of their beliefs and goals. We also know Darwin originally based human evolution belief on certain human beings resembling primates in the London zoo (Larson 2004:66). Today, evolutionists proudly say Africans were the link to apemen, human evolution is brazen racism, this is what happens when God is scorned as Creator.
Why has Jar (an evolutionist) denied the racist origin of evolution?