Was Charles Darwin a Racist ?

[Yeti]

Yes he was racist or arrogant, as he said the 'whiite man' evolved quicker than asian counterparts which was debunked by later anthropologists.

 

[Developereo]

I don't believe in god but i do believe in karma.

Then you are worse than atheists and religious people. At least those people are logically consistent.

Your position is logically inconsistent. If there is no God, then who enforces this karma? Does the universe have innate intelligence to judge every action and decide the appropriate karma? If you believe that, then you believe in pantheism, which is a form of religious belief.

 

[Marwari]

Then you are worse than atheists and religious people. At least those people are logically consistent.

Your position is logically inconsistent. If there is no God, then who enforces this karma? Does the universe have innate intelligence to judge every action and decide the appropriate karma? If you believe that, then you believe in pantheism, which is a form of religious belief.

Who are you to tell who is right or wrong?
People could believe whatever they want, I hate how some "preachers" here claim that their religion is final and absolute.

 

[desioptimist]

Then you are worse than atheists and religious people. At least those people are logically consistent.

Your position is logically inconsistent. If there is no God, then who enforces this karma? Does the universe have innate intelligence to judge every action and decide the appropriate karma? If you believe that, then you believe in pantheism, which is a form of religious belief.

No, why do you think there has to be a creator of a rule. Gravity does not have a creator, for the non believers at least.
Man made laws need creator and enforcer, natural one dont need them.
So if karma is a observable rule, it does not need creator. All we need is to show evidence.
There is no evidence, hence I dont need to believe in karma.

 

[Vinod2070]

Its all about motivation to do the right thing.

The so called faithful need if from the danda of the fear of religion, others may just feel that is just the right way.

Anyway, given that it is the so called faithful who indulge in the worst crimes (including the genocide of hundreds of millions), they seem to be the worse of the two.

 

[Developereo]

Who are you to tell who is right or wrong?
People could believe whatever they want, I hate how some "preachers" here claim that their religion is final and absolute.

This is not about one religion being 'better' than another, but about the belief that 'something' enforces karma.

No, why do you think there has to be a creator of a rule. Gravity does not have a creator, for the non believers at least.
Man made laws need creator and enforcer, natural one dont need them.
So if karma is a observable rule, it does not need creator. All we need is to show evidence.
There is no evidence, hence I dont need to believe in karma.

Natural laws do not make moral judgements. Karma, by definition, is a moral judgement. And moral judgements require an intelligence to assign a score of good or evil to an action.

If the poster does not believe in any supernatural intelligence, then who is assigning a score to each action and determining the appropriate karma?

 

[roadrunner]

In his book The descent of man , Charles Darwin said.

At some future period , not distant as measured by centuries , the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated.

The break between man in a more civilized state as we may hope , even than the Caucasian , and some ape as low as baboon , instead of as now between negro or Australian (aboriginals) and the gorilla.

Charles darwin , The descent of man , 2nd edition.
New York: A.L Burt co , 1874.
Page: 178.


---------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you think about "The father of Evolutionists " ?

Just normal thinking at the time.

 

[Bang Galore]

Here is the quote in context:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies -- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae -- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. 2nd edn., London, John Murray, 1882, p. 156, which can be found at The writings of Charles Darwin on the web.)

First of all, Darwin is making a technical argument as to the "reality" of species, particularly Homo sapiens in this case, and why there should still be apparently distinct species, if all the different forms of life are related by common descent through incremental small changes. His answer is that competition against those forms with some, even small, advantage tends to eliminate closely related forms, giving rise to an apparent "gap" between the remaining forms. Whether or not Darwin was right about that is irrelevant to the use of this quote mine, of course, since that is part of the context that the creationists using it have assiduously removed. For those interested in the real issue, a bit more information can be found in the response to Quote #3.1.

Claims based on either of these quotes that Darwin and by extension modern evolutionary theory was or is "racist" or that the theory leads to racism, are less than honest. As John Wilkins noted in a "Feedback" article:

Throughout the Descent, when Darwin refers to "civilised races" he almost always is referring to cultures in Europe. I think Darwin was simply confused at that time about the difference between biological races and cultural races in humans. This is not surprising at this time - almost nobody made the distinction but Alfred Russel Wallace.

. . . At this time it was common for Europeans (based on an older notion of a "chain of being from lowest to highest") to think that Africans ("negroes") were all of one subspecific form, and were less developed than "Caucasians" or "Asians", based on a typology in around 1800 by the German Johann Friedrich Blumenach. In short, Darwin is falling prey to the same error almost everyone else was . . . So far as I can tell, he was not hoping for the extermination of these "races", though. ... Throughout his life, Darwin argued against slavery and for the freedom and dignity of native populations under European slavery.

Darwin was not perfect. But he was no racist.

In short, there is nothing in Darwin's words to support (and much in his life to contradict) any claim that Darwin wanted the "lower" or "savage races" to be exterminated. He was merely noting what appeared to him to be factual, based in no small part on the evidence of a European binge of imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime. And if Wilkins is correct (and I think he is) about Darwin confusing biology and culture in this instance, Darwin was not entirely wrong. Certainly we can still see more technologically and militarily "advanced" cultures either destroying or, perhaps worse and more lasting, co-opting and replacing the less "advanced" ones.

Quote Mine Project: Assorted Quotes

To put it further in context (of that period)

The year of 1858 was both the year in which Abraham Lincoln engaged in the famous Lincoln - Douglas debates and the year that Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in a scientific paper. The the discussions that took place during those debates are very instructive in understanding views on race in America at the time, because race was a major topic of their senate campaigns and the their views can surely be seen as representative of the general views of the American public. The candidates were campaigning to attract voters, and were thus doing their best to both represent themselves and to cater to the desires of the public.

As we know, Abraham Lincoln won the senate seat and went on to win the presidential election and become one of the most honored men in American history. His name is synonymous with the ending of slavery in America and he is championed in schools across America as one of our greatest and most progressive leaders. So, what was Abraham Lincoln saying about race the year that Charles Darwin first published his theory of evolution?

"While I was at the hotel today, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. [Great Laughter.] While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. [Cheers and laughter.]"
- Abraham Lincoln; Fourth Debate with Stephen Douglas, September 18, 1858

 

[desioptimist]

This is not about one religion being 'better' than another, but about the belief that 'something' enforces karma.



Natural laws do not make moral judgements. Karma, by definition, is a moral judgement. And moral judgements require an intelligence to assign a score of good or evil to an action.

If the poster does not believe in any supernatural intelligence, then who is assigning a score to each action and determining the appropriate karma?

Yes. I agree on that. Morality is not fixed position around which rules of nature can be made.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Are you saying logic and reasoning is different from scientific method?
Are you saying we should use a bit of reason but not too much, like the scientists do? Why?

what is logic? If white cow give white milk then according to logic black cow should give black milk lol

You know when you born in Christian, Muslim, Hindu or in atheist family then your parent brainwash you and you become Hindu, Muslim or atheist without any choice so basically when you are infant then your parent choose these beliefs for you but when you become an adult then you decide your beliefs by doing your own reasoning/research. There are so many beliefs system out there so if you are blind followers and don't do any reasoning then you should have accepted all beliefs as you don't have any reason to stick with one. Peoples do reasoning for selecting right beliefs for themselves.

Science combines empirical observation and theorizing to understand what the universe consists of and how it works which provide an objective and rational foundation, based on what can be discovered by the human intellect for personal belief systems whereas Religion as well as Philosophy address "existential" questions of ultimate meaning and moral value, such as why we exist and how we should live our lives, transcending the knowledge that can be attained via the scientific method. Again reasoning and logic of one scientist can be refused by another scientist because scientists are human being and they can make errors in their observation or judgement. They also show belief on their senses that whatever they are observing is truth.

According to the hypothesis that is best supported (but not rigorously proven) by observations, our physical universe appears to have emerged from nothingness via the Big Bang (at a time when there was no time and in a place where there was no space) and then evolved subject to the laws of physics. However even if through the application of the scientific method, we were somehow eventually able to learn all that can be known about our universe from the moment of the Big Bang onwards, we would still be left with many unanswered existential questions. For example, why does our universe exist at all, instead of the continuation of the nothingness prevalent before the Big Bang? It is possible to reply by invoking quantum fluctuations but such an answer only pushes the boundaries of the mystery a step further since one can then wonder why the physical laws are structured such as to allow quantum fluctuations. Why do the physical laws and fundamental constants of our universe favour increasing complexity as manifested by the structuring of matter into galaxies, solar systems, and planets and at least on Planet Earth also the emergence of life and consciousness?

Furthermore, could our universe be just a component (or layer) of a more complex reality? In particular, do other universes exist? If they do, how and why might they have come into being? Obviously such "why" questions are not in the realm of science. Any answers cannot either be supported or refuted by empirical observations and hence they are in the realm of religion. Reasoning, rationality, logic has its limitations

Problem is once you are on the slippery slope of "enough reason for me", you cant stop yourself from sliding to absurd reasoning.
The people you see around you doing absurd religious things basically started at your level.

I did not get your point. What is absurd reasoning? I have seen even non religious peoples do absurd non religious things so what is actually your point? Are you trying to say that non religious peoples are more sane than religious peoples? Are you trying to say that believe in existence of God make you less intelligent ? Peoples doing absurd religious things started at my level? What’s my level? It would be better if you elaborate your point with some examples. I think there are many religious peoples who don't understand the logic behind certain teachings of their religion which create problems. There are many religious peoples who are ignorant about their beliefs which create problems. Its dangerous for ignorant person to be extremely religious as he can kill innocent peoples for God and many sane non religious peoples will blame his God instead of putting blame on him who misinterpreted the words of God

 

[desioptimist]

what is logic? If white cow give white milk then according to logic black cow should give black milk lol

You know when you born in Christian, Muslim, Hindu or in atheist family then your parent brainwash you and you become Hindu, Muslim or atheist without any choice so basically when you are infant then your parent choose these beliefs for you but when you become an adult then you decide your beliefs by doing your own reasoning/research. There are so many beliefs system out there so if you are blind followers and don't do any reasoning then you should have accepted all beliefs as you don't have any reason to stick with one. Peoples do reasoning for selecting right beliefs for themselves.

Science combines empirical observation and theorizing to understand what the universe consists of and how it works which provide an objective and rational foundation, based on what can be discovered by the human intellect for personal belief systems whereas Religion as well as Philosophy address "existential" questions of ultimate meaning and moral value, such as why we exist and how we should live our lives, transcending the knowledge that can be attained via the scientific method. Again reasoning and logic of one scientist can be refused by another scientist because scientists are human being and they can make errors in their observation or judgement. They also show belief on their senses that whatever they are observing is truth.

According to the hypothesis that is best supported (but not rigorously proven) by observations, our physical universe appears to have emerged from nothingness via the Big Bang (at a time when there was no time and in a place where there was no space) and then evolved subject to the laws of physics. However even if through the application of the scientific method, we were somehow eventually able to learn all that can be known about our universe from the moment of the Big Bang onwards, we would still be left with many unanswered existential questions. For example, why does our universe exist at all, instead of the continuation of the nothingness prevalent before the Big Bang? It is possible to reply by invoking quantum fluctuations but such an answer only pushes the boundaries of the mystery a step further since one can then wonder why the physical laws are structured such as to allow quantum fluctuations. Why do the physical laws and fundamental constants of our universe favour increasing complexity as manifested by the structuring of matter into galaxies, solar systems, and planets and at least on Planet Earth also the emergence of life and consciousness?

Furthermore, could our universe be just a component (or layer) of a more complex reality? In particular, do other universes exist? If they do, how and why might they have come into being? Obviously such "why" questions are not in the realm of science. Any answers cannot either be supported or refuted by empirical observations and hence they are in the realm of religion. Reasoning, rationality, logic has its limitations

I did not get your point. What is absurd reasoning? I have seen even non religious peoples do absurd non religious things so what is actually your point? Are you trying to say that non religious peoples are more sane than religious peoples? Are you trying to say that believe in existence of God make you less intelligent ? Peoples doing absurd religious things started at my level? What’s my level? It would be better if you elaborate your point with some examples. I think there are many religious peoples who don't understand the logic behind certain teachings of their religion which create problems. There are many religious peoples who are ignorant about their beliefs which create problems. Its dangerous for ignorant person to be extremely religious as he can kill innocent peoples for God and many sane non religious peoples will blame his God instead of putting blame on him who misinterpreted the words of God

If something is not in realm of science how would you know it is true? On what basis will you separate false claim outside realm of science from true claims.

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

If something is not in realm of science how would you know it is true? On what basis will you separate false claim outside realm of science from true claims.

I think you are not getting the gist of discussion as you are repeating same question again and again. It is belief that God exist and it is also belief that God don't exist lol. You don't know the difference between science and religious beliefs otherwise you would not be asking this question. Faith is not reliant on empirical/numerical data. Let me explain again how they differ with each others

BELIEF - Something which is held to be true by an individual.
FACT - A statement that can be proven.
TRUTH - A statement that is correct

Science draws conclusions based upon observations and measurements. The observations and measurements are generally accepted as true within a margin of error. Scientists also make some assumptions. Even within the scientific community disputes will arise when some scientists are unwilling to accept a conclusion. The word "conclusion" does not mean fact or truth. Frequently thoughout the history of science it has turned out that earlier conclusions were false, because they were based on false assumptions.

Most things which people tend to discuss as beliefs are not facts which means they cannot be or have not been proven, though they still may be true. for example if someone say Dolphins are more intelligent than human beings now this statement could not verified or disproved so its for peoples what they believe.

For example wine is good or wine is bad? Now can you tell which statement is based upon fact? You cannot so peoples will have different beliefs about whether wine is good or bad. If someone say wine contains ethanol and will cause an intoxicated state of mind if consumed then this is a scientific statement of fact. Notice how we can do an experiment based on the scientific theory that wine causes intoxication. By simply drinking a quantity of wine we can evaluate the truth or falsehood of this statement.

Take another example of Creationism vs the Big Bag Theory. The first is a belief and without proof or disproof, it may or may not be true. The Big Bang theory is widely accepted by scientists as the best explanation we have but it is still theory, based on assumptions and no true scientist will tell you otherwise. The scientist may choose to believe that the theory is correct but that is still a belief, no more or less valid than the person who believes in God's creative genius. Some people will also claim that God created the universe using the Big Bang. Again, this is merely a belief, unprovable either way.

The question of the existence of god is not a scientific question. God is not observed in nature except by inference of his presence by a particular observer. A Christian might observe god in the sunset, while an atheist might only observe diffraction and diffusion and chromatic extinction of sunlight. Many scientists may believe in a god and many highly unscientific people may not believe in god. There are many different kinds of people on planet earth.

There are people who place their belief entirely in what scientists have theorized about the universe. They focus on the necessity for "proof" of everything, by which they demonstrate that they do not have a clear understanding of science. On the other side are people who believe in things which by their nature are immeasurable. For some proof is unnecessary and for others, they claim as "proof" things which are not conclusive under scrutiny. In all probability, the people do this more because they feel threatened by the people on the opposite side of the debate than because they care about proof.

 

[Kompromat]

Bwahhahaha. it is just simply PRICELESS!!!

Last time i heard one of theists saying that before dying he became Muslim

Watch this for some "answers" to your bitter sarcasm about human genetics , theory of evolution , assumptions over considering humans as species and its political use.

If you have some "reasoning" left , considering the authenticity of the source and what not. You shall refrain from your "blind" following of Darwinism.

Bear in Mind , what i have been suggesting is that Darwin himself didn't know the consequences of his dogmatic theory. Your dear Nazis truly did , so did those who were on the receiving end , the jews , Gipsy's. I am sure i dont have to say a word about "being at the receiving end " to you . Your understanding is a thousand times better than mine on that.

 

[kaykay]

Peoples who are involved in science vs religion kind of debate. They both try to convince each other that their view is the right view, by assuming that the other side has the same judgment criteria as their side does. With that assumption the debate between them cannot possibly reach any conclusion. The fact of the matter is that religion and science each have a different set of criteria of judging what is "real" in the world. Simply put, science demands physical EVIDENCE in order to state that something exists. Religion on the other hand is actually based on the LACK OF EVIDENCE. That's what faith is all about: To believe in something simply because you FEEL that it is true, NOT because you have evidence that it is. In fact, the foundation of faith is based on the lack of evidence.

If faith required evidence then it wouldn't be called faith, it would be called "observation". So how can a debate between science, which fundamentally requires evidence, and religion, which fundamentally does not, lead anywhere if one of the sides does not realize and respect that each "field" reaches the same destination but from a completely different road?

So science and religion should stop arguing against each other, start respecting each other and realize that they are both equally valuable in our world for quite different reasons

very true....

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.

Charles Darwin