It wasn't Henry Morris who said that having a woman is better than a dog.... That was Darwin.
It wasn't Henry Morris who said civilized races would exterminate the less developed people...
He just said that black people were intellectually and spiritually inferior, because of "genetics." Darwin did express anger that other people were being exterminated by Europeans. He was familiar with the almost complete extermination of the Tasmanians, for example. But if you read his works, you'll find that he deplored the way these people were being treated.
Henry Morris beliefs didn't lead to the slaughter of millions....
He just provided justification for it. Darwin, of course, opposed the slaughter, and did what he could to stop it. As you learned, the Holocaust was the result of taking Luther's advice on what to do with Jews.
And, as you learned, it was the anti-evolutionist Louis Agassiz who provided a biological theory to support racism.
Darwinian beliefs that blacks were sub human..
Darwin considered other races to be inferior (as every European of the time did) but argued that they would, in the right environment, become as good as any European. And he was an opponent of slavery, arguing that every human deserved freedom and dignity. On the other hand creationists of the time, such as the captain of the Beagle, argued that God made blacks to be slaves of whites, a position repeated by the leader of the largest creationist group into the 1990s. You have it backwards.
Its nice you want to be an apologist for Darwin
I'm just showing you the facts. As you learned, the biological justification for racism was given by a creationist. And the justification for the Holocaust was Martin Luther's attacks on Jews.
but you seem to confuse some history of what Charles said and actions Erasamus took.
Nope. I suggest you read
The Voyage of the Beagle and learn about it. You've been fed a lot of foolish slander about Darwin.
Not all Christians fortunately fell for Darwinian beliefs.
Agassiz, for example, thought blacks were another species. In 1992, Henry Morris, head of the largest creationist organization, declared that blacks were intellectually and spiritually inferior to other humans. Because of their genes, he wrote.
As you learned, Darwinians have demonstrated that both creationist beliefs are foolish and ignorant.
Many still believed the Bible that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.
Darwin, for example, showed that we are all of a common ancestor.
Stephen Jay Gould... a proponent of Darwinism... and a proponent against racism admits “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”
Barbarian observes:
And I showed you who was primarily responsible for that. Louis Agassiz, a creationist
Yep. Would you like to see it again?
After Agassiz came to the United States he became a prolific writer the area of polygenism, the idea that races came from separate origins (specifically separate creations), that they could be classified on the basis of specific climatic zones (as animals and plants could generally be), and that they were accordingly endowed with unequal attributes, ideas now included under the rubric of scientific racism...Agassiz was a creationist who believed nature had order because God has created it directly, and Agassiz viewed his career in science as a search for ideas in the mind of the creator expressed in creation. Agassiz denied that migration and adaptation could account for the geographical age or any of the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Agassiz
Gould was speaking of Agassiz.
What you showed is that you are a bit of a history denier.
There's really no way for you to deny these facts. They are a matter of record.
Scientific racism resulted from Darwinism...
See above. You've been completely misled about that.
Many evolutionists admit it.
So far, you haven't shown us any.
Barbarian observes:
However slavery all but disappeared from the western world shortly after the acceptance of Darwin's theory.
Slavery was endorsed by most wealthy but not all. Fortunately Bible believing Christians such as Wilberforce fought to end slavery
There is evidence to suggest that Agassiz also opposed slavery. But like other creationists, he denied that blacks were of our own species.
As you learned, Darwin was an abolitionist who showed that all humans had a common ancestor, while creationists of the time insisted that blacks were a different species.
It wasn't creationists who hunted down and skinned Austraian Aboriginess to use as missing links for museum displays.
Actually, it was. Most of that went on before there were evolutionists.
I didn't say Darwin hunted down aborigines himself......(Although he did ask for Tasmanian skulls as specimans.
Barbarian observes:
He had European skulls, too. They still do in labs and medical schools. However the point is, as you learned, that the biological arguments for racism were by creationists, not Darwinists.
See above. Agassiz and Mason in this country did that. You've been misled about that.
For one thing, European skulls were not aquired by killing people. It was evolutionists who robbed graves and killed people to provide museums with samples of missing links.
Again, this went on primarily before Darwin wrote his book. There were no evolutionists before that.
It was Darwin who said that civilized races would wipe out the savages etc)
And said it was an "overwhelming evil." Darwin, as you learned, was quite angry over mistreatment of other races. Seeing what Europeans were doing to other races in Africa and Australia, he concluded that they might be wiped out entirely.
We also think its evil to mistreat animals.
But we don't think they deserve freedom and dignity as much as we do ourselves. And Darwin argued that they do. So you've missed the point, again.
Darwin didn't think much more of Pygmies and blacks than he did of apes.
I'm sure, that if you check in Darwin's book on the Beagle, you'll want to apologize for that falsehood.
I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character.
The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313
By the way, a negro lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds, which he did excellently; he gave me lessons for payment, and I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man. ― Charles Darwin, Autobiography of Charles Darwin
You seem to have absorbed some of Agassiz's racist attitudes yourself.
You refer to other "races" of people?
As I told you, there are no biological human races. Races exist only as social constructs.
God's Word tells us we are all descendants of Adam and Eve.
So Darwin believed when he wrote
The Origin of Species. Creationists like Agassiz did not agree. As you learned, your leaders continued to believe that biological human races existed into the 1990s.
Indeed.
If you believe it, why ally yourself with such people?
What I had said was that Darwinism, the belief humans had a common ancestor, lead to hunting of Australian aborigines for museums.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. In fact, that was going on before Darwin's theory was accepted. You're unhappy at the racist legacy of your beliefs, and you're trying to project it onto science. It won't work.
I think you are a big fat fabricator.
Well, let's take a look...
As early as 1804 the British began to slaughter, kidnap and enslave the Black people of Tasmania. The colonial government itself was not even inclined to consider the aboriginal Tasmanians as full human beings, and scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with White people at the top and Black people at the bottom. To the Europeans of Tasmania the Blacks were an entity fit only to be exploited in the most sadistic of manners--a sadism that staggers the imagination and violates all human morality.
http://webdesign97.tripod.com/hebrewisraelafricanrootsinformationsite/id51.html
These same people later claimed Darwin's theory justified what they had done. But this is like blaming Christ for the KKK.
For example German evolutionist Amalie Dietrich obtained freshly shot aborigines to be stuffed for museum displays.
Dietrich also obtained aboriginal human remains, at her employer's demand. She did obtain 8 aboriginal skeletons, but there is no evidence to suggest that she was personally involved in either grave-robbing or in murder. Sensationalism has led to the attribution of a "nickname", invented by a journalist in 1991, which has recently been widely publicized in Germany without any research. The power of the media has cast an undeserved slur on this woman's name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalie_Dietrich
Shame on you for repeating those slurs.
(denial, including someone who made the charge later)
Sorry, not convincing. Evidence would be good.
What has been recounted here is only a tiny part of Social Darwinism's dark face
There is no such theory. "Social Darwinism" was denounced as an overwhelming evil by Darwin himself, and as contrary to his theory.
You are embarrassed to learn of the racist roots of creationism. But that is what the evidence shows.
Another false slur. Not only did Darwin assail the moral failure of eugenics, but later Darwinists showed that Hitler's racial ideas were scientifically insupportable.
Darwinism played a major role in the holocaust.
As you learned, the Nazis followed Martin Luther's ideas, not Darwin's. Darwin said that to even allow a human to die was evil, even if that human was inferior. Luther advocated about 90% of Hitler's final solution, a fact the Nazis freely admitted.
The Nazi's seemed to loves Darwins ideas of inferior races...
They ignored Darwin's ideas, preferring to kill off those they thought inferior, even though Punnett and Morgan had shown that it made no sense to even try.
(uncheckable claims)
Not even a video?
Darwin writes in The Descent of Man that “a most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class” is the tendency of society’s “very poor and reckless”, who are “often degraded by vice”, to increase faster than “the provident and generally virtuous members”.
Darwin thought that heredity was humoral, like mixing paint. When Mendel's discoveries were rediscovered, it became clear that the above concern is not a valid one.
The point is that Darwin said that acting to limit survival of the poor would be evil. He objected to eugenics for that reason.
Also... Keep in mind that Darwin implemented ideas from Galton into his writings.
You're a bit confused. Dalton was the father of eugenics. Darwin assailed the very idea.
Had Darwin, Hitler and others accepted that all humanity is made in the image of our Creator, this world would have seen a lot less pain.
Darwin, when he wrote
The Origin of Species, believed that. He wrote that his orthodox Anglican beliefs were amusing to the ship's officers.
Again, I can see this pains you. But even if your leaders are racists, it doesn't mean you have to be. Agassiz and the early creationists were racists, because they didn't accept Darwin's demonstration that all of us have a common ancestor. Henry Morris was a racist because he refused to accept the fact that there are no biological human races.
But you live in a time when you don't have to believe those things.
How sad!!!