Happy Loving Day

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Would that be the same racism rooted in the dimwit party?

The only dim wit here is you.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Another example of common sense overcoming so-called science steeped in Darwin's theory. Common sense triumphed over scientific racism, which proclaimed through scientific measurements certain human populations are inferior to others.

Science is and probably always will be a work in progress. Racism is not scientific. The present view is that race itself is not a scientific concept.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Tom

Peer reviewed, too.!

Exactly what was peer reviewed? In what journals?

Originally Posted by Tom

I thinkg a lot of them signed some document.

Specifically who supposedly signed what?

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Actor

Science is and probably always will be a work in progress. Racism is not scientific. The present view is that race itself is not a scientific concept.

That is the point.
We are making fun of hcap for his posts on Climate!

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by Actor

Science is and probably always will be a work in progress. Racism is not scientific. The present view is that race itself is not a scientific concept.

What does your above comment indicate, a work in progress? By definition it is incomplete and cannot be trusted as fact. Just an excuse for all the errors.

The past view is race is part of the scientific umbrella. Darwin was a racists and his theory is steeped in racism, i.e. tree of life. If I believe your excuse than I must believe a theory based in racism is inherently flawed and has no factual basis.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

That is the point.
We are making fun of hcap for his posts on Climate!

You are making a fool of yourself.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

What does your above comment indicate, a work in progress? By definition it is incomplete and cannot be trusted as fact. Just an excuse for all the errors.

The past view is race is part of the scientific umbrella. Darwin was a racists and his theory is steeped in racism, i.e. tree of life. If I believe your excuse than I must believe a theory based in racism is inherently flawed and has no factual basis.

Your Darwin was a racist is a flawed misunderstanding of his theory.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Darwin and racism:

Many anti-evolutionists from Darwin’s lifetime to this day have done all they can to project Darwin in as bad a light as possible. One of the most prominent lies about Darwin is labeling him and his theory as “racist”.

Darwin was born to a wealthy family in England, surrounded by British imperialism and one of the most ethnocentric societies in world history. Almost all of the “scientific” authorities, anthropological colleagues, and religious figures around him trumpeted the dogma that whites were the superior race and blacks the most inferior, a racist ideology that goes all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. Darwin was born into this environment, but he did not share those views. In fact, he was probably the most egalitarian and progressive man in the 19th century. He challenged the anthropological and social status quo and rejected the prevailing prejudices of his time. He also got into an argument with the Beagle’s captain, Robert FitzRoy, when the latter praised slavery while Darwin rejected it. Darwin often praised those he met from so-called primitive cultures, and said that the nicest man he had ever met was a free military man of color stationed in South Africa.[5] He was not afraid to criticize people of his own ethnicity and frequently criticized his peers’ bigotry against subjugated people. He found every aspect of slavery abominable and wrote extensively against it.[6] He opposed the genocide of indigenous peoples and opposed the societal favoritism and double standards of Caucasian invaders.[7] He defined “savages” by their actions, not by their color or race.[8] In fact, he feared that his theory would be used as an excuse for racialism. Unfortunately, it was.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your Darwin was a racist is a flawed misunderstanding of his theory.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin

Darwin and racism:

Many anti-evolutionists from Darwin’s lifetime to this day have done all they can to project Darwin in as bad a light as possible. One of the most prominent lies about Darwin is labeling him and his theory as “racist”.

Darwin was born to a wealthy family in England, surrounded by British imperialism and one of the most ethnocentric societies in world history. Almost all of the “scientific” authorities, anthropological colleagues, and religious figures around him trumpeted the dogma that whites were the superior race and blacks the most inferior, a racist ideology that goes all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. Darwin was born into this environment, but he did not share those views. In fact, he was probably the most egalitarian and progressive man in the 19th century. He challenged the anthropological and social status quo and rejected the prevailing prejudices of his time. He also got into an argument with the Beagle’s captain, Robert FitzRoy, when the latter praised slavery while Darwin rejected it. Darwin often praised those he met from so-called primitive cultures, and said that the nicest man he had ever met was a free military man of color stationed in South Africa.[5] He was not afraid to criticize people of his own ethnicity and frequently criticized his peers’ bigotry against subjugated people. He found every aspect of slavery abominable and wrote extensively against it.[6] He opposed the genocide of indigenous peoples and opposed the societal favoritism and double standards of Caucasian invaders.[7] He defined “savages” by their actions, not by their color or race.[8] In fact, he feared that his theory would be used as an excuse for racialism. Unfortunately, it was.

He was a racist, his son was a racist and they perpetrated racism through his theory. There is no misunderstanding.

[hcap]

As I pointed out, the unfortunate acceptance of Eugenics was taken way out of context of the modern history of human biology by the author of your first article...

Originally Posted by me

Ramin Skibba took this dim period in science out of context The height of the modern eugenics movement came in the late 19th and early 20th century. And fell into disrepute after WWII.

And the critical Supreme Court decision of Loving helped put to rest the remains of the Civil War and primitive beliefs science has tried to destroy.

But not fully.

Racism still exists, but not in science today

[Show Me the Wire]

Some of Darwin's thoughts from the Descent of Man.

“highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect” The Descent of Man, pg 36

(savages have) “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command” The Descent of Man, pg 97

“How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence”, The Descent of Man (62).

Why would anyone want to be an apologists for a racists whose theories gave birth to scientific racism?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

As I pointed out, the unfortunate acceptance of Eugenics was taken way out of context of the modern history of human biology by the author of your first article...

And the critical Supreme Court decision of Loving helped put to rest the remains of the Civil War and primitive beliefs science has tried to destroy.

But not fully.

Racism still exists, but not in science today

It is baked in to Darwin's theories. No escaping that fact.

FYI the South did not win the Civil war. You make it sound like the South won.

State's regulated marriage through the health and welfare standards. The marriage prohibition is based on the health and welfare, meaning it was harmful to mix inferior and incompatible genes with superior genes. Hmnn where did that scientific truth arise?

The same reason why the Red Cross had segregated blood banks.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

He was a racist, his son was a racist and they perpetrated racism through his theory. There is no misunderstanding.

I just showed you that was wrong. I repeat....

Many anti-evolutionists from Darwin’s lifetime to this day have done all they can to project Darwin in as bad a light as possible. One of the most prominent lies about Darwin is labeling him and his theory as “racist”.

More......

Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...y-1519874.html

For those who feel that there is more to science than nature, however, Adrian Desmond and James Moore offer a bold new account of what drove Darwin on. His opposition to slavery in principle is well known, as are his appalled reactions to the evidence of its brutality he encountered on his Beagle voyage, such as the use of thumbscrews to punish slaves, or the man who cowered at his harmless gesture, reflexively anticipating a blow. What's new in Desmond and Moore's interpretation is the idea that this humanitarian concern motivated Darwin's science and guided it on its unique course. Evolutionary thinking enabled him to rescue the idea of human unity, taking it over from a religion that no longer provided it with adequate support, and put the idea of common descent on a rational foundation.

Hate to tell you guys but religion has been a supporter of slavery.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

I just showed you that was wrong. I repeat....
More......

I gave you Darwin's own words from his work the Descent of Man.

His own words convict him, but feel free to defend his racism, which sprouted scientific racism and people like Sanger who advocated for the elimination of the lesser races.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

It is baked in to Darwin's theories. No escaping that fact.

You do not understand evolution

FYI the South did not win the Civil war. You make it sound like the South won.

I am pointrting out the legacy of ther civil war and it's wsupport and approval of slavery haed 1000's of times more significance in shaping popular beliefs as to bigotry and overt racism........

than the brief infatuation of some biologists with eugenics.

State's regulated marriage through the health and welfare standards. The marriage prohibition is based on the health and welfare, meaning it was harmful to mix inferior and incompatible genes with superior genes. Hmnn where did that scientific truth arise?
The same reason why the Red Cross had segregated blood banks.

You neglect of religion's support of slavery in the south is shameful.

Religion in the Civil War:
The Southern Perspective

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/...fo/cwsouth.htm

For the South, this “chosen” status not only presumed ultimate victory in what would turn out to be a long and bloody conflict, but also put God’s imprimatur on the Confederate national identity. In fact, the South claimed to be a uniquely Christian nation. The new Confederate Constitution, adopted on February 8, 1861, and ratified on March 11, 1861, officially declared its Christian identity, “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God.” Southern leaders chose as their national motto Deo Vindice (“God will avenge”). Confederate President Jefferson Davis proclaimed that the time had come “to recognize our dependence upon God … [and] supplicate his merciful protection.” This national acknowledgment of religious dependence, as the South frequently pointed out during the war in both the religious and the secular press, stood in stark contrast to the “godless” government of the North that ignored God in its constitution and put secular concerns above the sacred duties of Christian service and the divine commission.
......

For their part, the southern women believed that they, no less than their men, would bear a critical responsibility before God for the outcome of the conflict. When they went to work in the mills and factories left unmanned by war, when they took over the roles of protector and provider at home, they understood themselves as vital players in a divine experiment of Christian nationhood. And when they suffered the afflictions of northern armies in their backyards and growing numbers of war dead, they strengthened and consoled themselves with the knowledge that they were doing God’s work on earth.

Part of that work, as had long been argued, was the “Christianizing” of the African slaves. To address abolitionists’ cries for an end to slavery, southern preachers declared that slavery was a sacred trust imposed on the South by the slave traders of Great Britain and the northern states. Furthermore, some averred, God had ordained slavery as a punishment for African paganism.


Sound familiar "White Man's Burden"?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

You do not understand evolution

I am pointrting out the legacy of ther civil war and it's wsupport and approval of slavery haed 1000's of times more significance in shaping popular beliefs as to bigotry and overt racism........

than the brief infatuation of some biologists with eugenics.
You neglect of religion's support of slavery in the south is shameful.

Religion in the Civil War:
The Southern Perspective

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/...fo/cwsouth.htm

For the South, this “chosen” status not only presumed ultimate victory in what would turn out to be a long and bloody conflict, but also put God’s imprimatur on the Confederate national identity. In fact, the South claimed to be a uniquely Christian nation. The new Confederate Constitution, adopted on February 8, 1861, and ratified on March 11, 1861, officially declared its Christian identity, “invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God.” Southern leaders chose as their national motto Deo Vindice (“God will avenge”). Confederate President Jefferson Davis proclaimed that the time had come “to recognize our dependence upon God … [and] supplicate his merciful protection.” This national acknowledgment of religious dependence, as the South frequently pointed out during the war in both the religious and the secular press, stood in stark contrast to the “godless” government of the North that ignored God in its constitution and put secular concerns above the sacred duties of Christian service and the divine commission.
......

For their part, the southern women believed that they, no less than their men, would bear a critical responsibility before God for the outcome of the conflict. When they went to work in the mills and factories left unmanned by war, when they took over the roles of protector and provider at home, they understood themselves as vital players in a divine experiment of Christian nationhood. And when they suffered the afflictions of northern armies in their backyards and growing numbers of war dead, they strengthened and consoled themselves with the knowledge that they were doing God’s work on earth.

Part of that work, as had long been argued, was the “Christianizing” of the African slaves. To address abolitionists’ cries for an end to slavery, southern preachers declared that slavery was a sacred trust imposed on the South by the slave traders of Great Britain and the northern states. Furthermore, some averred, God had ordained slavery as a punishment for African paganism.


Sound familiar "White Man's Burden"?

And the abolitionist movement was based in Christianity, they were doing God's work. So what is your point, everybody thinks God is on their side?

And yes, Darwin's racism supported the idea that Africans were sub-human, which is scientific evidence of God's punishment.