Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or races evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others.

• Before Darwinian evolution was popularized, when most people talked about "races," they were referring to such groups as the "English race," "Irish race," etc.

• Robert N. Proctor (Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis [1988]) observed: "Prior to Darwin, it was difficult to argue against the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on the single creation of Adam and Eve. Darwin 's theory suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of local conditions. The impact of Darwin's theory was enormous."

• Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"; viz: At some future period, not very 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 and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

• Despite his hatred of slavery, Darwin's writings reek with all kinds of contempt for "primitive" people.

• Thomas Huxley wrote: "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro (sic) is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successively with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, 1871)

• Many of the early evolutionists were outspoken racists, and racial inferiority views were assumed to be proven, and thus were less a subject of debate or concern than one today would assume.

• "Eugenics" Defined

• Sir Francis Galton, founder of the eugenics movement, believed very strongly that intelligence was mainly hereditary. He was also convinced there were profound differences in mental ability between the races. He regarded Negroes as barely human at all.

• Robert Chambers in his classic Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, concluded that Blacks were "at the foot of" the Mongol, the Yellow race between, and Caucasians at the top. Chambers himself taught that the "various races of mankind, are simply . . . stages in the development of the highest or Caucasian type. . ." and that the Blacks were the least developed, and the Caucasians were the highest, most evolved race.

• Although support for Darwin's theory was by no means universal, by the 1920s textbooks such as George William Hunter's 1914 Civic Biology that supported the idea that man had evolved from a lower life form, were prevalent in public schools. The message provided fuel to the growing eugenics movement in the United States. It concluded that as man descended from a lower life form, he evolved to varying degrees of accomplishment.

• Eugenics took root in America in the early twentieth century — some 33 states adopted forced sterilization programs to prevent the "feeble-minded" and other "defectives" from reproducing.

• Henry Fairfield Osborn, professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University from 1908-1933 and President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees wrote: "The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics . . . but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo Sapiens."

• In evolutionary theory, the survival advantage factor is the chief explanation for the existence of most differences. Because these differences result from the survival advantage that they confer upon an organism, an evolutionist must assume differences between or within a group likely exist because they provide some inherent survival advantage for the animal. Since the key survival advantage of humankind over "lower animals" is intelligence, consequently differences in this trait likely also exist between the races. This is exactly what has been assumed by many eugenicists, evolutionists, sociologists, and psychologists, both before and since the time of Darwin. This conclusion has justified a wide variety of governmental and scientific policies, not the least infamous were racial genocide programs.

• The two races most often compared are the "Caucasian" and "Negroid," now commonly called the "white" and "black" races. The dominant western cultural ethos, that whites were "superior"' and blacks "inferior"' and more "ape-like," was commonly reflected in science books published from 1880 and 1980.

• H. Klaatsch, a prominent German evolutionist, concluded that human races differ not only because of survival factors, but also for the reason that they evolved from different primates. The Blacks came from the gorillas, the Whites from the chimpanzees, and the Orientals from the orangutans, and it is for this reason that some races are superior. He concluded that "the gorilla and the Neanderthal man" have a close biological affinity to "a large number of the living African blacks . . ."[

• In the 1920s, an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading "Negro", said that the inherent mental inferiority of the blacks was even more marked than their physical differences and that no full blooded Negro has ever been distinguished as a man of science, a poet, or an artist.

• M. L. Moser (The Case Against Integration, 1974) says, ",  American Negroes that have made contributions to various fields, sports, science, etc., but ,  It is only that Negro that has a mixture of white genes in his system that has risen to the level where he has produced on the level with the white race."

• The racism which developed from the theory of evolution was by no means confined to Blacks. One of the leading American eugenicists, Charles Davenport, founder and director of the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor Biological Laboratory, concluded that Black Americans were below Caucasians-but so were several other groups. Among the groups that he included were 'the Poles, the Irish, the Italians, and . . . the Hebrews' and even the Serbians, Greeks, Swedes, and Bohemians.

• Mark H. Haller (Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought, 1984) writes: "[T]o understand attitudes of racial inferiority in the context of nineteenth-century science and social science is a first step in fathoming the depth of race prejudice in our own day. Inferiority was at the very foundation of their evolutionary framework and, remaining there, rose to the pinnacle of "truth " with the myth of scientific certainty. To see racial prejudices in their scientific robes is to understand why attitudes of racial inferiority have continued to plague western culture."

• At the US 1923 immigration hearings "many witnesses argued that "biology"' demanded the exclusion of most members of the Eastern and Southern European "races." "The primary reason for the restriction of the alien stream . . . is the necessity for purifying and keeping pure the blood of America."

• The result was that in April 1924 the immigration act was passed by overwhelming majorities in both the house and senate. President Calvin Coolidge supported the law, stating that, "America must be kept American. Biological laws show . . . that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races."

• ADOLPH HITLER USED EVOLUTION AS HIS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE HOLOCAUST.

• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (See Abortion section) was started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned "The Negro Project," her strategy for eliminating the black population. She believed in removing what she called "the dead weight of human waste." In the last week of July 2002, a lawyer in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for their failure to fully inform women about abortion. The lawyer also argued that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization that targets minority women.

• Natural Selection and the Columbine Killings


Read the rest of this article here : http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml#hitlink

If after reading this disturbing piece, you still support evolution, you are most confused !!

frosbel:

Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or races evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others.

• Before Darwinian evolution was popularized, when most people talked about "races," they were referring to such groups as the "English race," "Irish race," etc.

• Robert N. Proctor (Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis [1988]) observed: "Prior to Darwin, it was difficult to argue against the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on the single creation of Adam and Eve. Darwin 's theory suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of local conditions. The impact of Darwin's theory was enormous."

• Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"; viz: At some future period, not very 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 and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.

• Despite his hatred of slavery, Darwin's writings reek with all kinds of contempt for "primitive" people.

• Thomas Huxley wrote: "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro (sic) is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successively with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, 1871)

• Many of the early evolutionists were outspoken racists, and racial inferiority views were assumed to be proven, and thus were less a subject of debate or concern than one today would assume.

• "Eugenics" Defined

• Sir Francis Galton, founder of the eugenics movement, believed very strongly that intelligence was mainly hereditary. He was also convinced there were profound differences in mental ability between the races. He regarded Negroes as barely human at all.

• Robert Chambers in his classic Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, concluded that Blacks were "at the foot of" the Mongol, the Yellow race between, and Caucasians at the top. Chambers himself taught that the "various races of mankind, are simply . . . stages in the development of the highest or Caucasian type. . ." and that the Blacks were the least developed, and the Caucasians were the highest, most evolved race.

• Although support for Darwin's theory was by no means universal, by the 1920s textbooks such as George William Hunter's 1914 Civic Biology that supported the idea that man had evolved from a lower life form, were prevalent in public schools. The message provided fuel to the growing eugenics movement in the United States. It concluded that as man descended from a lower life form, he evolved to varying degrees of accomplishment.

• Eugenics took root in America in the early twentieth century — some 33 states adopted forced sterilization programs to prevent the "feeble-minded" and other "defectives" from reproducing.

• Henry Fairfield Osborn, professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University from 1908-1933 and President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees wrote: "The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics . . . but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo Sapiens."

• In evolutionary theory, the survival advantage factor is the chief explanation for the existence of most differences. Because these differences result from the survival advantage that they confer upon an organism, an evolutionist must assume differences between or within a group likely exist because they provide some inherent survival advantage for the animal. Since the key survival advantage of humankind over "lower animals" is intelligence, consequently differences in this trait likely also exist between the races. This is exactly what has been assumed by many eugenicists, evolutionists, sociologists, and psychologists, both before and since the time of Darwin. This conclusion has justified a wide variety of governmental and scientific policies, not the least infamous were racial genocide programs.

• The two races most often compared are the "Caucasian" and "Negroid," now commonly called the "white" and "black" races. The dominant western cultural ethos, that whites were "superior"' and blacks "inferior"' and more "ape-like," was commonly reflected in science books published from 1880 and 1980.

• H. Klaatsch, a prominent German evolutionist, concluded that human races differ not only because of survival factors, but also for the reason that they evolved from different primates. The Blacks came from the gorillas, the Whites from the chimpanzees, and the Orientals from the orangutans, and it is for this reason that some races are superior. He concluded that "the gorilla and the Neanderthal man" have a close biological affinity to "a large number of the living African blacks . . ."[

• In the 1920s, an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading "Negro", said that the inherent mental inferiority of the blacks was even more marked than their physical differences and that no full blooded Negro has ever been distinguished as a man of science, a poet, or an artist.

• M. L. Moser (The Case Against Integration, 1974) says, ",  American Negroes that have made contributions to various fields, sports, science, etc., but ,  It is only that Negro that has a mixture of white genes in his system that has risen to the level where he has produced on the level with the white race."

• The racism which developed from the theory of evolution was by no means confined to Blacks. One of the leading American eugenicists, Charles Davenport, founder and director of the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor Biological Laboratory, concluded that Black Americans were below Caucasians-but so were several other groups. Among the groups that he included were 'the Poles, the Irish, the Italians, and . . . the Hebrews' and even the Serbians, Greeks, Swedes, and Bohemians.

• Mark H. Haller (Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought, 1984) writes: "[T]o understand attitudes of racial inferiority in the context of nineteenth-century science and social science is a first step in fathoming the depth of race prejudice in our own day. Inferiority was at the very foundation of their evolutionary framework and, remaining there, rose to the pinnacle of "truth " with the myth of scientific certainty. To see racial prejudices in their scientific robes is to understand why attitudes of racial inferiority have continued to plague western culture."

• At the US 1923 immigration hearings "many witnesses argued that "biology"' demanded the exclusion of most members of the Eastern and Southern European "races." "The primary reason for the restriction of the alien stream . . . is the necessity for purifying and keeping pure the blood of America."

• The result was that in April 1924 the immigration act was passed by overwhelming majorities in both the house and senate. President Calvin Coolidge supported the law, stating that, "America must be kept American. Biological laws show . . . that Nordics deteriorate when mixed with other races."

• ADOLPH HITLER USED EVOLUTION AS HIS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE HOLOCAUST.

• Planned Parenthood Federation of America (See Abortion section) was started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned "The Negro Project," her strategy for eliminating the black population. She believed in removing what she called "the dead weight of human waste." In the last week of July 2002, a lawyer in Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for their failure to fully inform women about abortion. The lawyer also argued that Planned Parenthood is a racist organization that targets minority women.

• Natural Selection and the Columbine Killings


Read the rest of this article here : http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml#hitlink

What is darwinism and is it necessarily atheistic?

This article could be used as a lesson in fallacies and poor argumentation. I could put you through demonstrating the fallacies but it would simply be a waste of time.

thehomer:

What is darwinism and is it necessarily atheistic?

This article could be used as a lesson in fallacies and poor argumentation. I could put you through demonstrating the fallacies but it would simply be a waste of time.

During the nineteenth century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic processes. Darwin claimed to have arrived at this truth by working strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have argued that Darwinism is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the facts to support his theory. Darwinians responded that Darwin’s own writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some form of deity. A careful study of Darwin’s writings, especially his posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication, reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural selection was formulated to replace a Creator with naturalistic processes.

Bill Johnson

I bet atheists will be pleased ( black atheists ) to support a theory that demeans their intellectual status and reasoning ability.

Stop following the white man's religion

Where are all the atheists

Have they been stumped ?

frosbel:

Where are all the atheists

Have they been stumped ?

What has atheism got to do with Darwinism?. . .Am an atheist but I don't believe in evolution(Macro evolution). . .More Christians believe in Darwinian evolution than atheist. . .The catholic church accepts it. . . .Most Christians in Europe accept it. . .

Is it not you bible that encourages slaver by saying that one race are God chosen while others are not. . .I thought most people believe that blacks are cursed because they are descendants of Ham. . .

^^^

Which rather places you in a more precarious situation , because most atheist western scientists believe in Evolution as the principal concept for the origin of man.

So now tell me , if you do not believe in GOD and Evolution , what on earth do you believe in.

To date you are yet to provide any logic to back up your stand.

Please give us some substance, stop blowing hot air.

I don't want any ifs or buts, I want evidence.

@frosbel
Isn't there some kind of christian law against telling lies. Its written somewhere in Exodus or Deutoronomy and called something like the 10 commandments or some such. I'm asking because I've noticed that you tell the most ridiculous lies whenever you try to discredit evolution, like in your original post. Is it okay to disobey god by bearing false witness in as long as you are serving god? I'm not trying to attack you (well maybe a little bit), I'm just curious.

@mazaje
Its interesting to hear that you don't believe in (macro)evolution. What's your theory on the origin of the species? And where do you draw the line between macro and micro evolution. What's the difference between the two? If you take a small population of animals and isolate them in a slightly different environment than usual, whats to stop them from microevolving into a seperate and distinct species? Most scientists believe that the only difference between micro and acro evolution is the time it takes.

Isn't there some kind of christian law against telling lies. Its written somewhere in Exodus or Deutoronomy and called something like the 10 commandments or some such. I'm asking because I've noticed that you tell the most ridiculous lies whenever you try to discredit evolution, like in your original post. Is it okay to disobey god by bearing false witness in as long as you are serving god? I'm not trying to attack you (well maybe a little bit), I'm just curious.

Are you good at blanket accusations without providing evidence

Shocking .

Please point out the lies , thanks.

@frosbel only people who don't read history don't know that Darwin was racist. Does not mean there is no evolution. His work was not perfect, it has hence been revised but I would not expect you to have known of these revisions and that's why you are posting this as if it is some authoritative piece of evidence.
if newton used to screw small boys,  regardless of how you feel about it,  gravity will still pull you down if you jump up.
there is a clear separation between a scientists and his work.
No scientist can refute his own work without proper evidence to the contrary.

@ Frosbel,

You are quite informed about some of the applications of evolution. Anyone arguing on this fact may just be one of the many brainwashed fellows. However a number of scientist don't necessarily apply it as the eugenicist do.

@majaze

The teaching that blacks are the descendants of Ham is a popular lie being spread by the current Israeli. The Jews of the bible are more likely to be black in complexion that the white men you find in Jerusalem today. And one of the reasons the Arabs have rejected the current Jewish state is because they claim the Jews that left Jerusalem in AD 70 are blacks like the Nubis in Southern Egypt.

Atheism was strengthened by Darwin theory. Before Darwin evolution theories atheist have no backing for their belief at least scientifically but since Darwin proposed that life might have started without God atheists have taken evolution as their main reason to deny the existence of God and hence scientific findings as the truth.

Hmm another teaching moment. Oh well I'll rather use this one since it isn't as long as the OP.

frosbel:

During the nineteenth century Charles Darwin introduced his theory of evolution by natural selection. His goal was to show that life was not the result of divine intervention, but the work of blind naturalistic processes.

No, his goal was to explain the reason for the diversity of organisms he saw.

frosbel:

Darwin claimed to have arrived at this truth by working strictly with the facts apart from any preconceived ideas, and this is exactly how most people today perceive Darwinism. Dissenters have argued that Darwinism is not science, but that Darwin superimposed an atheistic/materialistic worldview on nature, then searched for the facts to support his theory.

Can you show that Darwin's theory is unscientific? And can you show this superimposition by Darwin?

frosbel:

Darwinians responded that Darwin’s own writings show that he was not an atheist, but always believed in some form of deity. A careful study of Darwin’s writings, especially his posthumously published private notebooks and personal communication, reveals that Darwin was indeed an atheist and his theory of natural selection was formulated to replace a Creator with naturalistic processes.

Bill Johnson

What you're missing here is the timeline. It seems you forgot to mention that he was initially being trained to be a to be Christian minister but after his journey round the world and the development of his theory, he couldn't believe in the Christian God any longer. So, the question you need to ask is what period in his life are the private notebooks and personal communication from?

Charles Darwin was most certainly not a racist. This is another example of the kind of odious lies creationists have concocted to discredit the great man. Some of you have noted that Darwinism is often used by racist groups such as the Nazis to justify their twisted ideologies but that is hardly Darwin's fault.

You see, what racists, creationists and religious nutcases have in common is that they like to twist scientific theories and use them to support their pre-conceived ideas. They cherry-pick the concepts they like and ignore or attack the ones they don't. This is what the racists have done with Evolution.

But what most people don't realize is that at the time it was published, Darwin's On the Origin of the Species actually debunked most of the pseudoscience racists were citing at the time. Such as the idea that whites were somehow better than other races or that blacks were more closely related to chimpanzees.


Darwin's theory proved without a doubt that all mankind had a common parentage and that no race or species was better or "more evolved" than any other (this is a concept that modern creationists still don't seem to understand judging from frosbel's posting history). In addition, Darwin actively campaigned for the abolition of slavery and left no one in doubt about how disgusted he was by the practice.

Now some of the language used in Darwin's books seems pretty racist by today's standards (he occasionally made references to "savages", but when you look at them in the context of when they were written, it becomes clear that they are not. Even the most liberal-minded 19th century Englishman would look like a hard-core racist by today's standards.

It's sad that the Nazis used Darwin's work to justify mass murder. But the man was long dead by then and probably turning in his grave.

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

zataxs:

@frosbel only people who don't read history don't know that Darwin was racist. Does not mean there is no evolution. His work was not perfect, it has hence been revised but I would not expect you to have known of these revisions and that's why you are posting this as if it is some authoritative piece of evidence.
if newton used to screw small boys, regardless of how you feel about it, gravity will still pull you down if you jump up.
there is a clear separation between a scientists and his work.
No scientist can refute his own work without proper evidence to the contrary.

Does this include evil brain then? He says this . . .

Evil Brain:

Charles Darwin was most certainly not a racist. This is another example of the kind of odious lies creationists have concocted to discredit the great man.

which is it? Darwin was a racist or not?

someone said atheists are confused.

May be Evil brain actually posted his comment with an 'evil brain' hence he made the comment unconsciously lol

@EvilBrain

Have you read this books 'The Voyage of the Beagle'

This book was written by Darwin.  Now see below an excerpt from this book and tell me what you think .

"It is very curious thus to see in the midst of a civilized people, a set of harmless savages wandering about without knowing where they shall sleep at night, and gaining their livelihood by hunting in the woods. As the white man has travelled onwards, he has spread over the country belonging to several tribes. These, although thus enclosed by one common people, keep up their ancient distinctions, and sometimes go to war with each other. In an engagement which took place lately, the two parties most singularly chose the centre of the village of Bathurst for the field of battle. This was of service to the defeated side, for the runaway warriors took refuge in the barracks. "



Now watch this :

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6nC4Mf-7hc?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

frosbel:

^^^

Which rather places you in a more precarious situation , because most atheist western scientists believe in Evolution as the principal concept for the origin of man.

Majority of western theist also believe in evolution they believe that man evolved or descended from apes. . .So I don;t know exactly what you are saying. . . .Most theist in the west believe in Darwinian evolution. . .

So now tell me , if you do not believe in GOD and Evolution , what on earth do you believe in.

I don't know and I don't care because both of them are fairy tales with little no evidence to back them up. . .Evolution at least has more evidence to back it up than creationism that relies on on stories. . . .

To date you are yet to provide any logic to back up your stand.

Please give us some substance, stop blowing hot air.

I don't want any ifs or buts, I want evidence.

Apart from baseless belief in the mythology, imaginations and ideas of the ancient Jews and white men what exactly do you have to back up your stand?. . . .

frosbel:

@EvilBrain

Have you read this books 'The Voyage of the Beagle'

This book was written by Darwin.  Now see below an excerpt from this book and tell me what you think .

"It is very curious thus to see in the midst of a civilized people, a set of harmless savages wandering about without knowing where they shall sleep at night, and gaining their livelihood by hunting in the woods. As the white man has travelled onwards, he has spread over the country belonging to several tribes. These, although thus enclosed by one common people, keep up their ancient distinctions, and sometimes go to war with each other. In an engagement which took place lately, the two parties most singularly chose the centre of the village of Bathurst for the field of battle. This was of service to the defeated side, for the runaway warriors took refuge in the barracks. "

I already addressed the bolded in my previous post. That's how everybody used to talk back then. Practically everybody who wasn't Caucasian was referred to as a savage. The kind of things academics, priests and politicians back then would say without raising a single eyebrow would be considered horribly racist by today's standards. Consider this quote from the great Abraham Lincoln, spoken the very year the Origin of the Species was published:

"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

Note that Lincoln was debating against an opponent who was far more racist than he. Now, compare that with what Charles Darwin wrote in his Descent of Man. Its a long read, but worth it.

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

He who will read Mr. Tylor's and Sir J. Lubbock's interesting works can hardly fail to be deeply impressed with the close similarity between the men of all races in tastes, dispositions and habits. This is shown by the pleasure which they all take in dancing, rude music, acting, painting, tattoing, and otherwise decorating themselves; in their mutual comprehension of gesture-language, by the same expression in their features, and by the same inarticulate cries, when excited by the same emotions. This similarity, or rather identity, is striking, when contrasted with the different expressions and cries made by distinct species of monkeys. There is good evidence that the art of shooting with bows and arrows has not been handed down from any common progenitor of mankind, yet as Westropp and Nilsson have remarked, the stone arrow-heads, brought from the most distant parts of the world, and manufactured at the most remote periods, are almost identical; and this fact can only be accounted for by the various races having similar inventive or mental powers. The same observation has been made by archeologists with respect to certain widely-prevalent ornaments, such as zig-zags, &c.; and with respect to various simple beliefs and customs, such as the burying of the dead under megalithic structures. I remember observing in South America, that there, as in so many other parts of the world, men have generally chosen the summits of lofty hills, to throw up piles of stones, either as a record of some remarkable event, or for burying their dead.

Now when naturalists observe a close agreement in numerous small details of habits, tastes, and dispositions between two or more domestic races, or between nearly-allied natural forms, they use this fact as an argument that they are descended from a common progenitor who was thus endowed; and consequently that all should be classed under the same species. The same argument may be applied with much force to the races of man.

As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters."
- The Descent of Man; Charles Darwin; 1871

Darwin argued that the differences within races were more than the differences between them. He observed that all races had similar habits, tastes, dispositions and "mental and inventive powers". The average Nairalander in the political section will hardly say the same thing about his fellow Nigerians from other tribes. The funniest thing is that the racists Darwin was opposing were using almost the exact same creationist arguments as frosbel and co to explain why "negros" were inferior and needed to be stopped from interbreeding with whites.

Stop pouring dirt on the man's name.

Edit: Darwin hardly mentioned people in the Origin of the Species, but he covered the topics of race and human evolution extensively in his book The Descent of Man. Here's a link to a PDF if you'd like to see for yourself.

http://www.munseys.com/diskone/darwindescent.pdf

Evil Brain:

@mazaje
Its interesting to hear that you don't believe in (macro)evolution. What's your theory on the origin of the species? And where do you draw the line between macro and micro evolution. What's the difference between the two? If you take a small population of animals and isolate them in a slightly different environment than usual, whats to stop them from microevolving into a seperate and distinct species? Most scientists believe that the only difference between micro and acro evolution is the time it takes.

A lot of it makes sense, A lot of it doesn't as well. . . .The supposition in the theory just doesn't add up to me. . .But quite a lot of it makes sense no doubt, But I don't accept it. . .

frosbel:


Now watch this :

[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6nC4Mf-7hc?version=3&hl=en[/flash]

Lol! I just watched your video. That guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Within the first 20 seconds he was already talking rubbish like "maybe that means white people have evolved further". I don't know why people who argue against evolution don't bother to learn what it actually says first. Actually I do, Its because strawman arguments are easier to win.

For the record, there is no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved". Humans aren't more evolved than chimpanzees. Each species has merely adapted to different circumstances in different ways.

For example, your average chimp would make a very poor farmer, school teacher or cab driver. On the other hand, most people wouldn't last a week in the dense African jungle where chimps thrive.

In the bush, you don't really need an upright gait all that much. Neither do you need a narrow pelvis built for long distance running over flat terrain; or such a big, well developed brain (the combination of the two makes your babies far more likely to get stuck and die in childbirth.) You don't really need to to be that smart.

In the bush, you need to be fast over short distances. You need to be physically strong, not slender and weak like humans are. You need to be an expert at climbing trees. And you need to be able to eat coarse, uncooked food. Chimpanzees survive better than humans in dense bush because that is what they are adapted to.

Now granted, people have been far more successful a species than the now endangered chimpanzees. But on the other hand, cockroaches have been more successful than humans. That doesn't make them better than us.

Frostbites logic - Bell created the first phone, Bell was racist, hence i shouldn't use the phone,
and people USE Darwin to support their racist arguments not the other way around.

By your logic, you shouldn't be a Christian either.

ATLgal:

Frostbites logic - Bell created the first phone, Bell was racist, hence i shouldn't use the phone,
and people USE Darwin to support their racist arguments not the other way around.

By your logic, you shouldn't be a Christian either.

That makes a lot of sense,