I cannot help but be despaired by the ignorance, laziness, stupidity and delusion of the class of Christian creationist who seek to malign the character of so august a man as the great liberator of humans, Mr Charles Darwin.  There are a number of website on the internet that promote the view that Darwin himself was a racist.  This represents one of the greatest falsehood and some Christians knowingly, dishonestly and immorally promote this false picture of one of the greatest of men.

At a time when racist attitudes were rampant throughout Europe and the world in general, the Darwin family was a few to belong to societies promoting enlightened behaviour and treatment of other humans.  He and his kin belonged to several anti-slavery and pro-abolition societies.  Is this the sort of thing a racist would do?


Why not check out the following excerpts from his book, the Descent of Man.   Check out this essay for more


    Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he perceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly variable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other races. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant. Savages, even within the limits of the same tribe, are not nearly so uniform in character, as has been often asserted. Hottentot women offer certain peculiarities, more strongly marked than those occurring in any other race, but these are known not to be of constant occurrence. In the several American tribes, colour and hairiness differ considerably; as does colour to a certain degree, and the shape of the features greatly, in the Negroes of Africa. The shape of the skull varies much in some races; and so it is with every other character. Now all naturalists have learnt by dearly bought experience, how rash it is to attempt to define species by the aid of inconstant characters.

    But the most weighty of all the arguments against treating the races of man as distinct species, is that they graduate into each other, independently in many cases, as far as we can judge, of their having inter-crossed. Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity amongst capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), sixteen (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke. This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.
    - Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

    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




Yet the majority of Christians, mired in their delusion, will continue to make these false allegations, when it takes a simple effort to correct their ignorance.   Does the Christian teaching advocate such blatant dishonesty, immoral lies and laziness?

I cannot also but despair at the crass ignorance, propensity for over-generalisation, blind hatred of christianity and mass delusion of the class of atheists who seek to push the anti-religion agenda solely for their own selfish benefit.

Horus, the one who claimed Darwin was racist, is not a christian AT ALL. He has made that clear from day one on this board and has 99% of the time sided with atheists against christianity. Horus it was who accused christians here of worshipping the sun god for christmas . . .

It is not surprising to see huxley make such an elementary error . . . as far as he is concerned everyone on earth is a christian.

This is one of Horus' latest posts here -

[b]Catholism and organise christianity is a continuation of imperial rome and white supremacy.[/b]When will black people have enough of that bullshit?.Religion erase reality and can be clearly seen in africa today,we are so unrealistic that the brain has become so useles and dormant,we live in a fairy world where we literally expect angels from fictitious heaven to think and act for us.Catholic church is one of the richest organisation in the world,all those poor women and men contributing their hard earn money everyday in africa and the rest of the third world to finance the supremacist pope,another hitler and the cleargys living in heaven on earth while the ones making them happy and powerful are in hell on earth.Heaven and hell is right here with us,open your eyes.

Can this idiot called huxley do a proper search before making false allegations?

davidylan:

I cannot also but despair at the crass ignorance, propensity for over-generalisation, blind hatred of christianity and mass delusion of the class of atheists who seek to push the anti-religion agenda solely for their own selfish benefit.

Horus, the one who claimed Darwin was racist, is not a christian AT ALL. He has made that clear from day one on this board and has 99% of the time sided with atheists against christianity. Horus it was who accused christians here of worshipping the sun god for christmas . . .

It is not surprising to see huxley make such an elementary error . . . as far as he is concerned everyone on earth is a christian.

Yes, I was specifically addressing this to the delusional Christians, the likes of No2Atheism, Davidylan, etc, etc who represent the majority of detractors of TTE here on NL. I know Horus is non-Christian and I also know he belongs to a form of superstitiuous irrationalism, just like Christians. But I could not remember the name of his sect. Anyway, you guys all have one thing in common - superstitious irrationalism - which inspired your perverted and delusional behaviour.

huxley:

Yes, I was specifically addressing this to the delusional Christians, the likes of No2Atheism, Davidylan, etc, etc who represent the majority of detractors of TTE here on NL. I know Horus is non-Christian and I also know he belongs to a form of superstitiuous irrationalism, just like Christians. But I could not remember the name of his sect. Anyway, you guys all have one thing in common - superstitious irrationalism - which inspired your perverted and delusional behaviour.

you couldnt be addressing it to "delusional christians" . . . we were not the ones who portrayed Darwin as racist but Horus. You dont seem to be making much sense at all.

You accuse us of being "detractors of TTE" but it doesnt seem as if you have a good grasp of it yourself. Pls kindly explain to us why an ordinary shrimp failed to evolve for 170 m yrs.

davidylan:

you couldnt be addressing it to "delusional christians" . . . we were not the ones who portrayed Darwin as racist but Horus. You dont seem to be making much sense at all.

You accuse us of being "detractors of TTE" but it doesnt seem as if you have a good grasp of it yourself. Pls kindly explain to us why an ordinary shrimp failed to evolve for 170 m yrs.

Does TTE say all organism HAVE to evolve?

huxley:

Does TTE say all organism HAVE to evolve?

may we ask TTE why some organisms evolved and simpler ones did not? Why did man and horses evolve and the shrimp and maple leaf remained the same?

, , please who is TTE, can i get to please meet TTE.

I taught evolution was just an hypothesis that is yet to be proved,