Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the creation of a smear
Then consider this quote as well:
"The essential point is that there are 10,000,000 Negroes here now and that the proportion of mulattos to a thousand blacks has increased with alarming rapidity since 1850. According to all evidence available, then, American intelligence is declining, and will proceed with an accelerating rate as the racial admixture becomes more and more extensive. The decline of American intelligence will be more rapid than the decline of intelligence of European national groups, owing to the presence here of the Negro. These are the plain, if somewhat ugly, facts that our study shows. The deterioration of the American intelligence is not inevitable, however, if public action can be aroused to prevent it.
There is no reason why legal steps should not be taken which would insure a continuously progressive upward evolution. The steps that should be taken to preserve or increase our present intellectual capacity must of course be dictated by science and not by political expediency." -National Research Council: A Study of American Intelligence - Princeton University Press; 1923
I guess the argument can go both ways, eh?
Of course, what he's talking about there is micro-evolution, which you guys profess to believe in, right? It's just change in allele frequencies within a "kind", no?
Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
And apparently you have now given creationists a get-out-of-jail-free card in the event that some were. All they have to do is invoke the same exonerating message you gave for Darwinists.
You don't see us trying to smear creationism on the grounds that some, perhaps most, nineteenth century creationists were racist; but if for some reason we ever lose our minds and our morals and descend to the gutter tactics of creationists, then you, too, will be able to play the "get out of jail free card" of pointing out that most people in the nineteenth century were racist, including creationists, evolutionists, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.
I'm not even entertaining those notions. I'm simply saying that many people have interpreted Darwin's notions in linear terms. I don't think its accidental. Hitler, Marx, Stalin, etc all used Darwinism as a basis for believing that their race was the most advanced.
But this is complete rubbish.
Stalin banned the theory of evolution, Marx, so far as I know, did not include racism amongst his other odd ideas (and published the Communist Manifesto eleven years before the Origin of Species) and as for Hitler, well, let's hear it in his own words shall we?
"The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. xi
"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
"The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator." - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi
There's a moral here. Before you recite poisonous creationist garbage in public, it is wise first to check that it is not the sort of stinking festering lie that would shame Satan himself.
And I'd be curious to know how many of their modern contemporaries secretly harbor these taboo thoughts ... I suspect they changed their tune because they understood quite well the social implications of maintaining a totally Darwinistic framework.
Your daydreams must be a great comfort to you. At one and the same time, you can fantasise that your opponents:
(a) agree that evolution has racist consequences;
(b) are racists;
(c) are liars and hypocrites who won't admit that they're racists.
And the best thing of all, I guess, is that because your fantasy involves them all lying their whole lives long about what they really think, your belief is completely unfalsifiable. No matter what opinions they voice or vote they cast, you will always be able to delude yourself that they are racist liars.
Like so many before you, you have found yourself a reason to despise and distrust your opponents which is absolutely independent of what they do or say.
It must make you feel very happy. It makes me wish that intercessory prayers for the spiritual welfare of others were actually effective, 'cos we seem to have exhausted all the other options.
Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
What claims have I made that are unreasonable? Quite a few people are saying that I am claiming that evolution will inherently lead to racism. I've made no such claim. What I have said is that based on the teachings, it is reasonable for racists to have come to their pitiable deductions.
This is a distinction without a difference. If it is truly reasonable to come to racist conclusions from the ToE, then racism is indeed inherent in it.
Are not these images telling of a progression?
You cannot, of course, find a similar picture showing a progression of races, because of course biology tells us that these constitute radiation from a common ancestor rather than a line of descent.
This changed as people's personal views began to change the science behind it.
An interesting assertion. What do you claim has been changed?
Does that erase what the theory is saying?
What is the theory saying? If you are back to pretending that it really does have racist implications, something that you denied at the start of this post, then it is up to you to demonstrate this.
I'm not. What I've been arguing, from the beginning, is that the question of if evolution reasonably has ties to racism, I believe the question to be a legitimate one.
It's a legitimate question. The answer is "no" --- unless you can indeed show that there is a reasonable link.
My use of quotes is only to show that it isn't far-fetched at all. I'm not trying to demonize evolution as being inherently racist at all. I'm simply saying that if some people come their "Master race" ideology after having read about evolution, don't be surprised by their conclusion. Its reasonable.
There you go again. You say that the racist conclusion is "reasonable". Well, we all know what sort of thing you find reasonable, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to press you for details on this one. How can one reason from the ToE to racism?
Sure, people manipulate all sorts of things for their own ends. No sense in anyone ever denying that. But what else should they deduce after reading the theory in its context?
That the following statement is not a justification for racism:
Has there ever been a regression within evolution? Has anything gotten worse as a result of evolution? Probably not. Why? Because of natural selection. It removes the aberrant and retains the strong. So clearly, there really, truly is a sense of advancement in evolution. How can you say otherwise?
But of course this statement does not lead us to conclude that we can rank people now living on the basis of their skin color and expect the ranking to reflect completely unrelated traits such as intelligence. Because there is absolutely no connection between these propositions.
Your statement implies that we might expect to be better adapted than our ancestors, not that we should a priori expect one currrent racial group to be superior to its co-evals.
Re: A schitzophrenic theory: the evolution of a lie
I certainly agree with you that it is nonsense, but the point I'm trying to make is that it happens-- less frequently than it did 50 years ago, and even far less than it did 150 years ago. But it happens.
And on the other side of the ledger:
"People who are bitter and hateful about slavery are obviously bitter and hateful against God and his word, because they reject what God says and embrace what mere humans say concerning slavery." - Senator Charles Davidson, 1996
Bad arguments never quite die.
And the only reason people came to such a faulty conclusion is the way evolution has been interpretated.
I.e: by racists, wrongly.
And if the theory says that humans descend from primates, and Ethiopians are the oldest known humans ...
Dead Ethopians may possibly be the oldest known humans.
Not living ones.
And yes, I am aware that it cuts a lot of corners in the theory to come to such a pithy conclusion, but it isn't completed unfounded either. That's all I'm saying.
But if they have to cut a lot of corners, then it is unfounded. If I cut a lot of corners, I could get from "they serve bacon sandwiches on planes" to "pigs have wings", and the conclusion would be "completely unfounded", 'cos of all the corners I cut.
Well, I think in response to this gibble, it's only necessary to repeat RAZD's observation:
So far you have totally failed to demonstrate that racism is a necessary outcome of evolution.
Your claim that "Marx and Nietzsche have already done so" is something which you've made up in your head, which is why you cannot quote them presenting any such demonstration. And certainly you have not done so.
Now one can always be an atheist evolutionist and be irrational about applying it to one's own life, thereby escaping the need to be racist and heartless.
But it's no good you carrying on mouthing this pathetic gibberish when you cannot show any rational link between evolution and racism. Since there is none, it is not "irrational" for evolutionists to reject racism.
Am I wrong, or is not the oldest, wealthiest, most talented and popular human being in the world a failure if they die childless (according to evolutionism)?
You are, of course, wrong.
In fact, let me save you a little time. You are a creationist. All the halfwitted gibberish you make up in your head about "evolutionism" will be wrong. It would be of no use to you if it wasn't.
No, just that it is restricted to the use by evolutionary scientists at that time.
Lamarkism had already been rejected by the scientists at that time as invalid and not a part of evolutionary processes, so when the Stalinist government rejected everything but Lamarkism and Lysenkoism they rejected whatever definition you care to use consistent with the times.
It would be more accurate to say that Stalin suppressed the theory of evolution.
Whether what Lysenko et al promoted could be called "evolution" is really more of a semantic than a factual question.