I was reading this article last night I found. I am a Christian and I already knew that Darwinian evolution is rascist. But I had no idea until now that it is sexist too. It\'s interesting because many people have this idea like Christianity is sexist, and it\'s not true at all, but ironicly evolution is extremely sexist against women and if you read this article you will see. Here is some few interesting quotes from the article: I don\'t think women are the same or equal in everything as men or have the same roles at all, but It\'s more than obvious that Darwin was an evil fool who has fueled rascism and sexism and eugenics all over the world. It\'s because of his evil ideas that gave rise to communism and socialism and other evils that this last century has been so bloody. It\'s interesting to note such foolish assumptions were made by supposed \"great minds\" that were totally false and rediculous. Even his idea of what was the mechanism for evolution, pangenesis was proven wrong a long time ago, which is why they went to neo-darwinism which replaced pangenesis with mutations, which have proven to be total failure. I think it\'s really important to recognise the huge unscientific assumptions that were made from the very beginning and realize that those same type of assumtions are made everyday in the field of evolution, and false conclusions based on faulty presuppositions. I just don\'t understand how people in general even listened to this idiot. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/females.asp
from the page you linked too: Hmm, biological racism in place of racism? I like this train of thought.. We shall call evolution \'biological racism\', and we all know ALL racism is bad (including the biological, cross special variety). So of course, evolution is very bad! Oh it goes on, with evidence: Oh I see, not darwin but \'darwinists\'. Darwin actually never used these term did he? Let\'s examine reference 4: Love, R., Darwinism and Feminism: The ‘Women Question’ in the Life and Work of Olive Schreiner and Charlotte Perkins Gilman; in: Oldroyd and Langham, The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought, D. Reidel, Holland,pp. 113–131, 1983. Ok, so that\'s clear, darwin was not a sexist(at least I have not seen it demonstrated anywhere), nor a racist (except a \'biological racist\', aka a darwinist). Also interesting to note, these terms have not made their way into modern science, surprisingly enough. I suppose some where along the line, this sexism was stamped out. Or are there some remnants left in contemporary evolutionary theory? And to answer your question, people listened to darwin because his insights were revolutionary regarding our knowledge of the natural world.
who was that other bloke around the same time (or was it earlier?)... the guy whos ideas were far more harsh than darwins actually were... y\'know all those \"social darwinists\", they dont actually fit the bill for what darwin was actually all about, only what he gets accused of. Azi, i like the cheeky tone i was reading that with. i hope i interpreted it as intended.
Saying Darwin himself wasn\'t sexist ignores the facts in the article I linked. Go read his words for yourself. He was in support of people in his own day who he knew that supported eugenics, rascism, and sexism. If you suppose thinking that women are inferior to men merely based on superficial assumptions and unscientific conclusions is not sexist, then that is totally wrong. Darwin was a sexist and a rascist and believed women children, and everyone who was not a white caucasian was inferior. This was not based on science. One of his contemporary colleages was in full support of eugenics and Darwin was fully aware and in agreement with all of these things. Darwin thought that woman was less evolved than man, and was so less intelligent that they were for a time considered two different \"psychological\" species. There was no basis for this, just like there was no basis for saying Africans were lower forms of man. It\'s garbage. Most people don\'t really pay attention to these facts of evolution. Even women who believe in evolution are largely ignorant of this. But it must be understood that this is an inescapable part of Darwinian evolution, as was pointed out in the third paragraph in the quotes above. People ignore it ,but it\'s still there, waiting to be unleashed. Hey if you had paid attention you would see that it includes Darwin: What are you referring to? You havn\'t shown or proven anything.
If you compare Darwin to the moral standards of today, he sounds like a monster(especially when you take his words out of context). If you compare him to people from his own time, he was a pretty normal dude, except not interested in getting married or being a christian. There was no civil rights for women and non-whites at all. If you were black, you were either a slave or the son of a slave, by today\'s standards they were completely sexist and racist. Women were not even considered human by the law. Let\'s look at British suffrage history and Darwin here to put it in perspective: 1809: Darwin is born. 1869: Britain grants unmarried women who are householders the right to vote in local elections. 1882: Darwin dies. 1894: The United Kingdom expands women\'s voting rights to married women in local but not national elections. 1918: The United Kingdom gives a full vote to women of age 30 and older and men age 21 and older. 1928: The United Kingdom grants equal voting rights to women. Notice that women were not given a full vote until 45 years after Darwin\'s death, almost as if, the generation that came after Darwin had completely different ideas than the one that preceded it. Also the Eugenics that Galton worked on (ie nature vs nuture a study of Variation under Domestication, inheritance of abilities, encouraging rich people to marry each other), and the modern use of eugenics (referring to nazi style mass executions) is disingenuous. Articles like this (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/nazi.asp) which go almost as far as blaming the holocaust on Darwin really show that the people who write this shit should move on, and accept evolution for the working scientific theory it is.
Azimuthal, I think comparing it to the moral standards of today it is irrelevant. It is just plain wrong. I also blame the holocaust on darwin, but not just one him but also martin Luther and everyone who listened to these idiots. That nazi article is by no means disingenuous, It\'s very accurate. Evolution is not a working scientific theory, in fact by defenition it\'s not even a theory. And I won\'t move on because evolution hasn\'t moved on. This rascism, sexism, eugenics are all inseperable parts of Darwinian evolution. People can ignore it ,but it just doesn\'t make logical sense. If we live in a totally naturalistic world with no Spiritual Truth, protection of the weak, and love and compassion make no logical sense. Kids are shown schildlers list and they go through this numerous times throughout school so they learn from the past and it will \"never happen again\", but they\'re not learning from the past, they don\'t understand that Hitler understood the implications and so do all these communist leaders, and so did all the slaveowners and sexist fools like Darwin. It\'s only waiting to become unleashed again, unless people learn and recognise the implications. Sooner or later someones going to come along, someone angry in power, over an angry nation like germany in Hitlers day. They\'ll understand the implications, and they\'ll justify it, because when things were going nice, they felt no motivation to appraoch these moral challanges, but then they\'re forced to recognise the implications to make serious decisions. Of course it\'s the wrong decision, but they\'ve chosen that path, and that\'s where it leads.
It is not wrong. Darwin\'s motives were not racial and sexiest. He (to my knowledge) did not set out to prove the superiority of men and the white race. If that was his intention, then he did not prove that at all and came upon one of the greatest discoveries science has made. You blame the Holocaust on Darwin? Funny... I blame it on Hitler, the Nazi\'s, and the German people. Hitler had his agenda, and he would have found some bullshit reason to do what he wanted. In this case, he jumped on a pseudo science bandwagon, not the fault of Darwin, nor of evolution, and quite simply, one of many in a list of bullshit excuses. Hitler was a Christian you know... Perhaps it was the Bible that encouraged him to these acts? Perhaps Hitler was simply fucked in the head? http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is, and you clearly have little to no understanding of evolution. Do some reading on Evolution. Oh, and please, stay away from AnswersInGenesis.org if you actually want to learn useful info on evolution, like the truth. You\'re obviously not thinking hard enough. Compassion and love make perfect logical sense, because they help bind us to one another. We live in groups, that is how we survive, without compassion, love, and all that jazz, we would have a very hard time getting along in our groups and would not survive for very long. Spock may say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, I, however, would say that the needs of the many are the needs of the one. So, Hitler decide to hate Jews simply because of Darwin\'s theory. Funny, I have never found the section on the imperfection of the Jewish people. Perhaps you could point it out for me? By that logic we should round up every Bible on the planet and destroy it, because it is only a matter of time before some nut job happens by and gets all sorts of crazy ideas from it. Hell, we should burn all the books and make reading and passing on knowledge illegal as well. Never know when a nut job might learn something dangerous. Oh my. Your argument is illogical and built upon fallacy.
Why is it OK for animals to be racist and sexist, but not humans (who are also a species). I think racism and sexism is natural, it will always occur, no matter what you try. Raise some children on an island with no outside inteference, those kids will start following darwin\'s rule without any help, BECAUSE IT\'S NATURAL. Is it wrong? Sure it feels wrong, but I bet the female lion feels bad when chased from the kill (sexism), but it\'s NATURAL. Quit complaining about stuff you can\'t change.
Racism and sexism is not natural. It\'s socially constructed. Thanks to the mapping of the human genome we have determined that race is not biologically real. It exists solely in our minds. There is actually more genetic variation within a race than between races. An isolated person will not be racist or sexist. period. It\'s learned behavior. You have to interact in a group in order to learn how to be racist or sexist.
So is it OK to hate your own kind? ANYTHING that we do, is natural. If rasicm was socially constructed, THAT is natural.
I would call it a perversion before I would call it natural. Racism and sexism is learned behaviour as far as I can tell. Little boys and little girls on the playground do not treat each other in such manners, unless they have others in their lives who do so. At least, from what I have observed. *shrugs*
Of course it is learned behavoir, but isn\'t everything learned? I think racism is not hating someone just because, it\'s hating someone to protect your food/life/idea/etc. Raise some children on an island, arrange them apart (just like we were) and let them slowly find each other, you\'re telling me they wouldn\'t have violent clashes as adults? ALL CHILDREN play when young, elementary schools you\'ll see races mixed, middle school and high school not so much. Doesn\'t it seem odd that we have to try REALLY hard not to be racist? I\'m not racist and I don\'t hate certain races, but I do observe that WE ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL.
Yes, everything is learned, we have no genetic memory (sadly). What you are talking about is not racism. People are naturally wary of difference, but that does not mean they should respond to that difference by hanging it from a tree. It means we act cautiously until we can determine a threat, and that has nothing to do with race. If white guy A came upon white guy B\'s tribe and they have never met, they would be wary of him in the same way they would be if white guy A was black guy C. Racism is not what you are describing. The only reason some people find it hard not to be a racist, is because society contains so much of it, you thus learn to make judgments based upon race. Societal flaws infect society.
QUOTE: It\'s interesting because many people have this idea like Christianity is sexist, and it\'s not true at all, but ironicly evolution is extremely sexist against women and if you read this article you will see. Wrong on the evolution side, as pointed out above. And our theory of evolution has moved on a very long way since Darwin. It\'s the basis of the science, not what we use in its entirety today. Nowadays we have things like genetics to support it, and can show that man has been on the earth for millions of years longer than creationist christians believe. But, that aside; Christianity IS sexist and always has been. Mary Magdalene (JC\'s main confidant in his own words) was written out of the bible because of the implications of parity it meant for women in a male-dominated religion. The priesthood had always been entirely male. Women also had to sit in a separate part of the church to worship. Here in the UK, women have only recently been allowed to become vicars and hold positions of power in christianity, etc. Nobody can say that the church has historically treated women as the equals of men, and it\'s only very recently that they\'ve been taken seriously at all. Paul: \"Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.\" (1 Cor 14:34) MelT
liquidtruth: Yes, I do. I think the defenition you posted is rather self defeatist. Theory of reletivity, theory of gravity, those are true theories, and they can be tested repeatably and their results have been recorded. When it comes to the past, empircal science has major limitations. That\'s why when it comes to origins, it\'s totally different than normally operated empirical science. This is ad hominem, and you give no reason why it should be avoided.Aig is a profession organization with phd scientists who many of whom have earned thier degrees at secular colleges. They also have built a world class museum and have a scientific Journal. You\'re not looking at the bigger picture. You\'re talking about self-preservation, but darwinian evolution is a hypothesis of biological change over periods of time.The mechanism for these things, how we get better and evolve in darwinian evolution is fueled through survival of the fittest, preservation of the strong, and weeding out the weak. That is always what is has been about. There\'s no love in that. And evolution can\'t see ahead, and think to itself, \" If we all just love each other then survival will be better.\" Which is really a lie anyways according to the philosophy of evolution that type of scenario would keep new characteristics from emerging. It is dependant on eugenics and death. It is a blind process. It\'s also important to remember than humans are very different in thier social organizations than other animals. Most animals are about pure survival. The bible does not teach rascism, eugenics, or sexism. Evolution does. It\'s only hidden from a public that has not come to grips with reality. Information is not assimilated by itself in our minds. It is always added as part of our personal view or philosophy in life. Our biases and philosophies give us direction.
budder81: You see this law of tooth and fang as something natural and unavoidable based on your presupposition that it has always been this way. But It is wrong, and it feels wrong, and that\'s why human beings don\'t want to be treated that way.How can people contradict themselves to badly? On one hand, we should love each other and honor one another, but on the other hand evolution is reality so death and struggle and pain and cruelty to the weak are all natural. These two philosophies directly contradict one another.
budder81: It doesn\'t seem to me at all that we have to try really hard not to be rascist. I don\'t know where you\'re coming from. We all have the same valuue, but different gifts.
Quote: Jonathon: The bible does not teach rascism, eugenics, or sexism. It teaches ALL of these things. It\'s earliest tennets were not to mix with other races and religions and treat them as enemies. Sexism too is rife throughout christianity and always has been. Do a google on christianity+sexism and see how many biblical quotes against women come up, and how many stories of religion suppressing women and their right to worship. The last thing christianity can possibly claim is that it\'s not sexist. MelT
That certainly was a mouthful. evolution has zero practical value. It has done nothing to further science. If anything, is has brought science back wards. When people get the wrong idea about nature, they come to wrong conclusions. Vestigial organs is a great example. There used to be over 100 of these so called \"leftover remnants of evolution\" but so far almost every single one has been found to have at least one purpose. You can not prove man has been on this earth for millions of years. All of these dating methods require amounts of information that is not available, making assumptions neccesary. It is also well known to those in the field that all of these methods are very often totally off the expected mark, and the data is often \"played with to get the right answer. And we defenitely cannot know that man has been around for millions of years. If you\'re referring to carbon dating, that can only be used up to a period of thousands of years, not millions. Also, the amount of c14 in the atmosphere has not been constant, and calibration of the c14 clock outside of recorded history is not possible. There are also other problems and variables with cosmic rays, magnetic fields, other changes in the biosphere etc. And if anything, genetics have worked against evolutionary theory. That is a whole another topic though. No Christianity is not sexist. God\'s Word teaches that men and women have different roles, not greater or lower value. When people attack the Bible as sexist it is based on thier own false presuppositions for which they have absolutely no authority to stand upon. And where does it show anywhere that Mary Magdalene was his main confidant? In a admittedly fictional book with terrible historical research? You won\'t believe a nation of witnesses to Jesus\' supernatural abilities but you\'ll believe a fictional book. Women are not equal in thier gifts, in thier genetic makeup, in thier behaviour, in thier responsibilities. And this is not sexism, but sexism is most certainly in evolution which without justification concludes such rediculous things as has been shown in the article above.
Not mixing with other nations, not other races. And by the way, anyone could join Israel if he wanted to red, yellow, black, or white. The reason they did not mix with other nations or other cultures was because they were sinful, not because of thier genetic makeup. I\'m sure there are lots of claims to religious institutions suppresing womens right to worship, but this is not in the bible, and I\'m sure many of these claims are invalid, based on previously mentioned faulty presuppositions and bad reasoning. Where does it teach eugenics? No where. In fact, christianity teaches exactly the opposite. It teaches to have mercy on the weak. God hates the proud, and lifts up the humble. That\'s what the bible teaches. Go read the beatitudes. There is no rascism in the bible, especially when the bible teaches there are no races, only 1 race of humanity and we never evolved. It doesn\'t make sense.