And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Acts 17:26
"The thread of racism in Darwinian thinking isn’t a chance thing, a mere byproduct of Charles Darwin’s personal views as a “man of his time.”
You think if Darwinism had emerged not in the dark age of the 19th century but in our own woke era, it would be different? No, it wouldn’t. The racism is inherent, unavoidable:
Acts 17:26
"The thread of racism in Darwinian thinking isn’t a chance thing, a mere byproduct of Charles Darwin’s personal views as a “man of his time.”
You think if Darwinism had emerged not in the dark age of the 19th century but in our own woke era, it would be different? No, it wouldn’t. The racism is inherent, unavoidable:
That’s just the difference between Darwinism and any type of creationism OR non-Darwinian approaches toTrue, O’Leary has been saying this for a long while. As she wrote over at Uncommon Descent last year:
evolution. In a Darwinian scheme, someone must be the official subhuman.
I have been trying to get that across for years. It’s why Darwinism can never get away from racism. Racism is implicit in the Darwinian belief system about how things happen. Even if one’s creationism amounts to no more than the idea that humans have an immortal soul, it makes all humans equal for all practical purposes. Take that away and believe instead that humans are animals that slowly evolved from less-than-human creatures and a variety of things happen, none of them conducive to non-racism.
The problem is not merely that Darwin, a man of his age, was a racist. The problem is that his bias resulted in his and others distorting the fossil record to suit a racist worldview.Those issues with the fossil record are the theme of most of paleontologist Günter Bechly’s recent writing at Evolution News. She goes on:
To “get past” the fact that Darwin was a racist, we must be willing to undo science that begins by assuming that non-European features are sub-human. But the “hierarchy of man” is rooted in the fundamental assumptions of the “Descent of Man,” the idea that Darwin popularized. Rooting it out would call so many things into question as to produce a crisis. What will we be left with?
Indeed. But then an even bigger problem looms: In any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. If not the current lot (formerly, the “savages,” currently the Neanderthals and/or Homo erectus), who will it be?
If they aren’t found, the Darwinist is looking down the maw of some sort of creationism. It need not be theistic creationism. But it does mean that a momentous event happened with explicable swiftness, like the Big Bang or the origin of language, findings naturalists do not like precisely because of their creationist implications.
Surely these are the true reasons Darwinists simply can’t confront the race issue and get past it, and so they resort to long-winded special pleading." EN&V
