1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Was Darwin Racist and Homophobic at the Same Time?

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by james bond, Apr 7, 2017.

  1. james bond

    james bond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,046
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    Most of us know that Darwin was racist in his attitude and behavior. The worst is his claim that humans descended from chimpanzee-like-apes. The blacks, especially those in Africa disavow this theory and claim it is racist.

    "Long before post-Darwinian “scientific racism” begins to develop, then, one can find blacks being depicted as closer to apes on the Great Chain of Being. Take mid-19th century America in circles in which polygenesis (separate origins for the races) was taken seriously. Leading scientists of the day Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, in their 1854 Types of Mankind, documented what they saw as objective racial hierarchies with illustrations comparing blacks to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

    Comparing Black People to Monkeys has a Long, Dark Simian History | The Huffington Post

    However, what's not so widely know is Darwin's "survival of the fittest." Darwin and evolutionists claim this the driving force behind natural selection. Here's what it says in Brittanica about the term:
    "The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations. For example, a woman who rears six healthy offspring has greater fitness than one who rears just two."

    This has to do with how a fit male and female are able to pass on their genes. The fittest being the most to procreate. What about LGBTs? Can they pass on their genes? They may be able to, but if they're 100% same-sex then they can't. This seems to allude that Darwin was homophobic. He knew this just about as well as anybody during his time. Imagine that. Science backs the fittest humans as those who can procreate.
     
  2. Altfish

    Altfish Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    8,040
    Ratings:
    +6,310
    Religion:
    Humanist
    :eek:

    Face palm!!

    Evolution is real, get over it.
     
    • Like Like x 7
  3. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    9,697
    Ratings:
    +8,351
    Religion:
    none
    By the classic definition of the term, yes Darwin was racist (or racialist). This is true of many/most of his contemporary European "men of science".

    He believed that some races were inherently superior, and that the "lesser races" would die out just like poorly evolved animals do.

    "Survival of the fittest " was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, who was a noted "social Darwinist" before such a term even existed, and was one of the most widely regarded public intellectuals.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    26,097
    Ratings:
    +10,278
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

    As Altfish said, evolution is real, get over it.

    .
     
    • Like Like x 4
  5. siti

    siti Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2017
    Messages:
    3,843
    Ratings:
    +2,875
    Darwin received an Anglican education and initially trained as clergyman at Cambridge. Even when his faith dwindled, he still referred to the Bible on matters of morality so he probably was anti-gay. He was, apparently, strongly opposed to slavery (not that unusual in Britain by that time) and did not believe that the different "so-called races" of mankind should be ranked as different species. He was taught taxidermy at Edinburgh by John Edmonstone - a freed black slave whose skills, personality and intelligence Darwin evidently respected.

    So homophobic possibly, racist almost certainly not. Do you suppose if he had been more overtly bigoted, mainstream Christianity would have been more readily drawn to the theory of evolution? But in any case, your conclusion that "science backs the fittest as those who can procreate" is wrong - science doesn't do that, nature does - but only in as far as individual genetic heredity is concerned. In all other respects, homosexuality is commonplace, natural and in broader ecological/sociological terms neutral, if not beneficial (depending on the circumstances).
     
    • Like Like x 6
  6. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    6,200
    Ratings:
    +4,626
    Maybe? So what? If Newton were a baby eating chainsaw wielding serial killer who raped puppies on the side Gravity and Newton's laws of Physics would stand regardless. Scientists tend not to give two ****s about the personal lives of scientists, but look at the evidence they present instead.
    Besides a far shorter list would be who WASN'T a racist homophobe in Dawin's time. And really? Slandering a dead man? Cowardly much?

    Also gay people existing already has a bunch of hypothesises about why they are beneficial to human survival overall. Procreation isn't the be all end all of Evolution you know?
     
    #6 SomeRandom, Apr 7, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  7. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Strange Loop

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,530
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    Religion:
    none
    Are you for real?

    Natural selection is close to being a truism and undoubtedly is what happens. Which says absolutely nothing about how people ought to behave.

    Science describes nature - it isn't about backing people.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. Augustus

    Augustus the Unreasonable

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2014
    Messages:
    9,697
    Ratings:
    +8,351
    Religion:
    none
    Darwin's racism was a result of his scientific theories though, not his personal relationships.

    In the original sense, racism was not about personal animosity and bigotry towards others but the belief that races had characteristics that made some superior and others inferior.

    He did write about 'savage' and 'civilised' races, and did think the 'savage' races would die out. Not that this implies he saw this as a good or desirable thing, it was just a neutral scientific perspective of perceived 'fact' rather than a moral judgement.

    These views were very common in educated European society and later on evolved into more extreme forms of (what would later be termed) 'social Darwinism' and advocacy of eugenics (which was often seen as enlightened, progressive and a moral good).

    None of this counts against his general ideas regarding evolution of course, but there is a tendency among those of a scientific-rationalist persuasion to whitewash the aspects of the European intellectual history that don't chime with their modern 21st C Humanist values.

    Darwin was a racist (in the original sense), but it should no more count against his reputation than Newton's imperfect view of physics.
     
  9. ArtieE

    ArtieE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    6,165
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    Religion:
    None
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,632
    Ratings:
    +4,169
    This article (and the very extract you quote from it) are clearly talking about the notion of polygenesis, not common ancestry. Darwin's theory proposed no such racial hierarchies, and stated that all races and species evolved together from common ancestry - not in separate and distinct hierarchies. There is no shortage of people who wish to use evolutionary theory as a justification for racism, but they only do so without really understanding the implications of the theory properly, since common descent implies the exact opposite of a racial or polygenetic hierarchy.

    Are you serious? Do you also propose that because the theory of gravity was proposed by Newton, it means Newton harboured prejudice towards people who are afraid of heights?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. fantome profane

    fantome profane Have you read the Mueller Report?
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11,485
    Ratings:
    +5,751
    Charles Darwin was an Englishman living in the 1800's. Of course he believed that the white European race was superior to all other races. You would be hard pressed to find a white european from that time that did not believe in their racial superiority. If your great great great great grandfather was living in Europe in the 1800's, chances are very very good (almost certain) that he was a racist. I am not trying to justify it, I am not saying it was right, but you do have to understand the context.

    Charles Darwin showed no animosity or hatred towards other races, he simply believed that whites were superior, as he had been taught all his life. But he still believed that other races should be treated with respect and dignity, and he opposed slavery. In fact, Darwin's attitude towards other races was very similar to that of Abraham Lincoln (another 19th century man who was born on the exact same day as Charles Darwin).

    This is complete nonsense. You might as well argue that "nature" is homophobic. Darwin didn't decide that it requires a sperm and an ovum to reproduce. That is a fact of biology.

    (if you think nature is homophobic, take it up with your "God". Darwin didn't create nature)
     
  12. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Greased up & ready for action!
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    150,237
    Ratings:
    +42,291
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    I see several problems with this post.....

    1) Darwin's work is of great value, independent of any personal foibles he might have.

    2) Your link doesn't show anything in Darwin's writings or actions to support the claim that he was racist. (And there is some evidence to the contrary.)

    3) The criticisms of him are based upon the false notion that evolution supports racism & other bigotries.

    4) There is some confusion about the word, "race", which is used differently (from modern types) by Darwin.

    An interesting view.....
    Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?
    He seems a pretty good fellow compared to his contemporaries, & even by modern standards.
     
    #12 Revoltingest, Apr 7, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  13. james bond

    james bond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,046
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    It's an interesting phrase that Darwin usurped it for later publication in his book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.". This is a phrase still used today by social Darwinists and fascists.

    EDIT: You mentioned Herbert Spencer coining the term which is correct.

    Yet, "Social Darwinism as a worldview
    Spencer is most (in)famous for applying the concept of survival of the fittest to human society—the strongest and fittest should flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. In his Social Statistics (1851), he opposed welfare systems, compulsory sanitation, free public schools, mandatory vaccinations, and any form of ‘poor law’. Why? Because under ‘social Darwinism’ human social order was the result of evolution—those on top of the heap deserved to be there. The rich were rich because they were more fit and so were entitled to benefit at the expense of the weak, e.g. in the exploitative excesses of capitalism.20

    Likewise, superior nations were entitled to dominate native peoples and seize their lands and possessions, e.g. the excesses of colonialism (and the Germans applied this in WW121). He wrote: “A nation which fosters its good-for-nothings will end by becoming a good-for-nothing nation.”22 According to Spencer, not only was survival of the fittest natural, it was morally correct also!"

    Herbert Spencer - creation.com
     
    #13 james bond, Apr 7, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  14. james bond

    james bond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,046
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    I'm not saying nature is homophobic. I'm saying Darwin was. His ideas are racist and homophobic today. For example, we got big news about Barry Manilow coming out yesterday. Many people thought he was heterosexual, married and had children. Others had their doubts. Yet, he didn't have any children. What am I supposed to think? This was not a survival of the "fittest." I didn't make these terms up for evolution. It clearly states that the driving force is how procreative one is. It may be a driving force, but it's an outdated concept.

    Barry Manilow's ex-wife Susan Deixler on his marriage to Garry Kief | Daily Mail Online
     
  15. james bond

    james bond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,046
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    The point is it's still racism and homophobia. And it's of the worst kind. It's racism and homophobia "supposedly" backed by science. The ideas behind Darwinism is disgusting. The phrase survival of the fittest is used by fascists today.
     
  16. james bond

    james bond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,046
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    I wouldn't call Darwin a good fellow, but a racist and homophobe. How could he not know the implications of his theories? Did you read about Darwin's cousin in your link?

    "Statistician and anthropologist

    Charles Darwin's cousin, born in 1822, Galton made his name as a geographer of Africa. His later research in statistics and anthropology led him to apply his relative's breakthrough findings to human differences. As a strong proponent of the role of heredity in variations between individuals and groups, his championing of "nature" versus "nurture" was developed in the 1869 book 'Hereditary Genius' and then via the study of twins. In 1883, he coined the word "eugenics", and advocated strategies for improving human stock to give "the more suitable races or strains of blood" a better chance of success. His idea of "negative eugenics", designed to restrict the reproduction of less "fit" populations, would eventually feed into the policies of sterilisation followed by many from Nazi Germany to Social Democratic Sweden."
     
  17. james bond

    james bond Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,046
    Ratings:
    +445
    Religion:
    Christian
    The whole point of this post is we have to understand the roots of evolution. It is science run amok in order to promote the ideas of racial inequality and how LGBT cannot pass along their genes. Isn't this what the fascists are saying? Just look at the ideas and behavior of scientists before, during and after Darwin. It's silly to think it was only the "other" white scientists and not Darwin. Not only these ideas of evolution archaic, but simply not true. We had Lucy the chimp from Ethiopia try and make a grand tour around the world. People would not buy it. I think this is one of the reasons why. If an evolutionist went to Africa to promote these ideas today, then I would think a riot would break out and the safety of this individual would be compromised.
     
  18. ArtieE

    ArtieE Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2012
    Messages:
    6,165
    Ratings:
    +1,286
    Religion:
    None
    James Bond is a Christian. White American Christians built their economy on the largest slave trade in history. Darwin was vehemently against slavery.
    Charles Darwin's research to prove evolution was motivated by his desire to end slavery

    "he opposed the popular racist discourse and instead proposed that all human beings were the same species, and viewed the differences between human races as superficial. In fact he was quite unique in that respect, and made no distinction between biological races but instead emphasised how similar we all were underneath the superficial differences such as skin or hair colour."
    Was Darwin a racist, and does evolution promote racism? - #DarwinDay (Hint ... No) - Skeptical Science
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Strange Loop

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,530
    Ratings:
    +1,005
    Religion:
    none
    This is as mad as a box of frogs. Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory about how nature works - and it is backed up with copious evidence. Darwin's personal views (whatever they were) are irrelevant, as are the views of people who tried to misuse it to promote racism.

    Like any other scientific theory, it stands on evidence.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  20. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    28,782
    Ratings:
    +12,112
    Religion:
    Catholic-- liberal & ecumenical
    I see. So, if a Christian pastor turns out to lie and be corrupt, does that mean we should blame Christianity for that?

    And how long ago did Darwin live? And supposedly we're so joined at the hip with Darwin that there's been no scientific advancement on the ToE since Darwin, right?

    Got it.
     
Loading...