Was Darwin Racist and Homophobic at the Same Time?

[QuestioningMind]

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.

No, it is NOT science run amok. It is SCIENCE, just like any other SCIENCE. It uses the EXACT SAME scientific method as the science that developed whatever device your using to post with. Science is NOT like religion where you get to pick and choose which parts you want to believe in and discard the rest. If you accept the scientific method that determined that the Earth orbits the sun, then you have to accept the same scientific method that determined that lifeforms evolve into more complex lifeforms over time.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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.

lol

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

Once again, do you believe Newton harboured prejudice against those afraid of heights because he proposed the theory of gravity?

I honestly can't take you seriously. I'm calling POE.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

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.

You hear the term ad-hominem thrown around a lot, but generally people misuse the term by misunderstanding it to mean any sort of personal insult.

Here we have a true ad-hominem argument, in its purest form. A true ad-hominem argument is an argument directed 'at the man' to distract from or discredit the work, science, or philosophy accomplished by the man.

Jimmy can't be a good baseball player because he picks his nose, or Tom is a bad husband because he eats too much saturated fat.

In short, this is some falicious garbage, and a very weak and ineffectual jab that accomplishes nothing and demonstrates nothing at all about evolution.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

How about this one.

If Jesus actually lived(highly unlikely) he roamed the desert and as such, probably didn't shower too much, so he would have smelled pretty bad.

Therefore Christianity is false.

 

[Simurgh]

You hear the term ad-hominem thrown around a lot, but generally people misuse the term by misunderstanding it to mean any sort of personal insult.

Here we have a true ad-hominem argument, in its purest form. A true ad-hominem argument is an argument directed 'at the man' to distract from or discredit the work, science, or philosophy accomplished by the man.

Jimmy can't be a good baseball player because he picks his nose, or Tom is a bad husband because he eats too much saturated fat.

In short, this is some falicious garbage, and a very weak and ineffectual jab that accomplishes nothing and demonstrates nothing at all about evolution.

..... what satan said.
anyhow, I'm the one on catnip and i just don't get how this whole drivel about Darwin being a racist discredits evolution and/or any scientist who works on matters related to it.
is this a fallout of the trump science disaster we are now dealing with? alternative facts--clearly a catnip issue--in their full glory? Evolution is a scientific theory, regardless of who got the ball rolling and what their proclivities were.

that god thing on the other hand has too many people inventing stuff and not being able to agree on it. let's go after those homophobic racists too.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

Darwinism is a mirror reflection of Victorian age perceptions of reality in every form of course. But I don't think those perceptions were necessarily 'bad' or 'racist' or 'scientifically illiterate' - in the context of that time and it's limited scientific knowledge.

If Darwin knew what we knew now, I am quite sure he would be as skeptical of evolution as most people today, by his own stated standards. He was a pretty smart and curious guy after all, with an admirable preference for independent scientific method over academic pop-science. It's just that those two are reversed in their conclusion today.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Darwinism is a mirror reflection of Victorian age perceptions of reality in every form of course. But I don't think those perceptions were necessarily 'bad' or 'racist' or 'scientifically illiterate' - in the context of that time and it's limited scientific knowledge.

If Darwin knew what we knew now, I am quite sure he would be as skeptical of evolution as most people today, by his own stated standards. He was a pretty smart and curious guy after all, with an admirable preference for independent scientific method over academic pop-science. It's just that those two are reversed in their conclusion today.

Even if that were true, it would leave Victorian era Darwinism a handful of epochs ahead of bronze age creationism now wouldn't it?

 

[ratiocinator]

If Darwin knew what we knew now, I am quite sure he would be as skeptical of evolution as most people today, by his own stated standards. He was a pretty smart and curious guy after all, with an admirable preference for independent scientific method over academic pop-science. It's just that those two are reversed in their conclusion today.

This is patently silly. Informed scientific opinion is all but universally behind Darwin's theory and it has gathered an entire new line of evidence (genetics) to support it.

 

[danieldemol]

JB,
If you ever change your mind and consider the possibility that God and evolution can coexist, you won't be alone.

Not all believers reject evolution.

 

[Augustus]

Fourthly evolution does not state what you are implying. Only a racist would say that, because they are twisting evolution for their own warped agenda.

It is fair to point out that while modern theories of evolution might not say that, 19th/early20th C theories of evolution most certainly did say things like that.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. Charles Darwin - The descent of man

I believe he was influenced in this view by what was happening to the Australian aboriginals.

No one will dispute that the sciences were less advanced in the 19th C than today, and that many theories have been updated and revised in light of new evidence. If one of the strengths of the sciences is revisibilty then it doesn't really matter either. It's just par for the course.

It doesn't detract from modern TOE in any way, and shouldn't detract from Darwin's reputation either.

Scientific theories of race were considered proper science back then, and many educated, progressive people accepted them as fact. They shouldn't be viewed through a 21st C lens though of modern racism, things that look awful now, were then seen as enlightened (including eugenics). If we took an RF time machine, many of the Scientific-Rationalist posters here would be presenting such views matter-of-fact the way they talk about global warming or the big bang.

Such theories also do lead all the way to the Nazis and the horrors of the 20th C and had significantly permeated the European bourgeoisie (even if by that time they were falling out of favour among many scientific thinkers).

Science and Reason are value neutral, not timelessly ethical. While the OP obviously has an agenda, there is a kernel of truth to what he says (albeit just a kernel).

 

[SomeRandom]

It is fair to point out that while modern theories of evolution might not say that, 19th/early20th C theories of evolution most certainly did say things like that.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. Charles Darwin - The descent of man

I believe he was influenced in this view by what was happening to the Australian aboriginals.

No one will dispute that the sciences were less advanced in the 19th C than today, and that many theories have been updated and revised in light of new evidence. If one of the strengths of the sciences is revisibilty then it doesn't really matter either. It's just par for the course.

It doesn't detract from modern TOE in any way, and shouldn't detract from Darwin's reputation either.

Scientific theories of race were considered proper science back then, and many educated, progressive people accepted them as fact. They shouldn't be viewed through a 21st C lens though of modern racism, things that look awful now, were then seen as enlightened (including eugenics). If we took an RF time machine, many of the Scientific-Rationalist posters here would be presenting such views matter-of-fact the way they talk about global warming or the big bang.

Such theories also do lead all the way to the Nazis and the horrors of the 20th C and had significantly permeated the European bourgeoisie (even if by that time they were falling out of favour among many scientific thinkers).

Science and Reason are value neutral, not timelessly ethical. While the OP obviously has an agenda, there is a kernel of truth to what he says (albeit just a kernel).

Well I largely agree. Science corrects itself over time. Therefore one should never look to the past to see what a scientific theory says. That's just idiotic. Anyone who took Primary (elementary) school Science should be able to tell you that. But to be fair to Darwin, he called out what he saw as destruction to Australian aborigines as abominable. Just saying.

 

[Simurgh]

wow, all those dogs running in circles, chasing their tails and barking so loudly. then it can all be boiled down to one thing. darwin was a reflection of his time as are we. he held the ideas of his time PLUS a few scientific ideas that were vehemently opposed by the religiously inclined who were all upset that they were just a link in a chain and not the specially created servants of some god.
now we have evolved in body and thought--at least cats hope so, since they need someone with opposable thumbs and the willingness to open the occasional faucet and bag of food, and some of us are not as racist and not as afraid of the smiting and burning in hell as so many others apparently are. We embrace evolution as a sound scientific theory, regardless of the personal flaws of its originators.
now let's look at the bible and its racism and misogyny, and the murder of children and all that stuff that makes that book such a fantastic read and we think about how that compares.

 

[columbus]

It is fair to point out that while modern theories of evolution might not say that, 19th/early20th C theories of evolution most certainly did say things like that.

It isn't just science that has improved and become more sophisticated since Darwin's time. Modern ethics have as well.

Pointing out Darwin's primitive ethics is like pointing out his reliance on sail power to do his research instead of first inventing faster ships. It just isn't relevant to what he did.
Tom

 

[james bond]

First of all there are many gay people who have kids. Homosexuality is not synonymous with sterility. And in social species it's normal not to have the entire population procreating. As that would be a drain on resources. So gay people not having kids does not go against evolution. Biology fail much?
Secondly considering the absolutely appalling sins committed against gay people by (some) Christians literally in the name of Christianity it's a little rich to harp on about Darwin and by extension evolution being homophobic. Evolution does not try to force gay people into unhappy married lives to appease its beliefs. That would be Christians and their idiotic (and denounced by scientists) Ex Gay "therapy." Hell there's a doco called kidnapped for Christ which exposes the more seedy aspects of this despicable practice (just when you thought it couldn't get worse.) Not to mention all the "abomination" complaints consistently issued by various Churches. I guess that makes Christianity inherently homophobic right?
And at least Darwin was more egalitarian than his contemporaries. Also gee what are the chances that a person living during a time when homosexuality was literally against the law might have been homophobic? Colour me shocked.
Thirdly your slander is not only several logical fallacies (appeal to authority, ad hominem etc) it's a sin. Or did you forget the whole "thou must not bear false witness" thing?
Fourthly evolution does not state what you are implying. Only a racist would say that, because they are twisting evolution for their own warped agenda.

This is ridiculous. Have you read Darwin at all?

 

[james bond]

No, it is NOT science run amok. It is SCIENCE, just like any other SCIENCE. It uses the EXACT SAME scientific method as the science that developed whatever device your using to post with. Science is NOT like religion where you get to pick and choose which parts you want to believe in and discard the rest. If you accept the scientific method that determined that the Earth orbits the sun, then you have to accept the same scientific method that determined that lifeforms evolve into more complex lifeforms over time.

You do not know anything about science but what the internet atheists told you.

 

[james bond]

lol

He who laughs last, laughs best.

 

[james bond]

You hear the term ad-hominem thrown around a lot, but generally people misuse the term by misunderstanding it to mean any sort of personal insult.

Here we have a true ad-hominem argument, in its purest form. A true ad-hominem argument is an argument directed 'at the man' to distract from or discredit the work, science, or philosophy accomplished by the man.

Jimmy can't be a good baseball player because he picks his nose, or Tom is a bad husband because he eats too much saturated fat.

In short, this is some falicious garbage, and a very weak and ineffectual jab that accomplishes nothing and demonstrates nothing at all about evolution.

Nothing fallacious about it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Poor Darwin. Deniers of reality keep piling up on him, for no fault of his own.

 

[metis]

You [QM] do not know anything about science but what the internet atheists told you.

QM is correct, and you simply haven't a clue how science works, and then you resort to disingenuous tactics to try and distort real science and demean scientists. If this is what your denomination teaches you is right and proper, then maybe find a church that teaches that fabricating false stories and teaching them as if they were fact is morally unacceptable.