Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Darwin was a racist

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Originally posted by The Beatles View Post
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/e...pes-found.html

    Thats an interesting read......it will eventually lead us to a soulless society filled with nihilism
    I'm afraid results may be much worse. Some thoughts of G. Orwell:

    http://www.orwell.ru/library/article...nglish/e_notew

    http://www.orwell.ru/library/reviews...nglish/e_burnh

    Comment


    • #42
      Darwin's use of terms like "negro" and his references to them being "lower" than Caucasians is simply a reflection of the prevailing view of the age. In fact Darwin was very progressive on matters of race in comparison with his peers at the time he wrote Descent of Man.

      As for the first part suggesting that the subtitle of Origin of Species is racist is simply the sort of nonsense you'd expect from somebody who hasn't even attempted to read the source material.

      Ultimately however it doesn't matter whether Darwin was a nasty bigot, it does nothing to damage his theory which has been borne out by a century and a half of scientific experiment and discovery. Isaac Newton was a particularly unpleasant individual despised by almost all of his contemporaries, but that has no bearing on the veracity of his work.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by squealpiggy View Post
        Darwin's use of terms like "negro" and his references to them being "lower" than Caucasians is simply a reflection of the prevailing view of the age. In fact Darwin was very progressive on matters of race in comparison with his peers at the time he wrote Descent of Man.

        As for the first part suggesting that the subtitle of Origin of Species is racist is simply the sort of nonsense you'd expect from somebody who hasn't even attempted to read the source material.

        Ultimately however it doesn't matter whether Darwin was a nasty bigot, it does nothing to damage his theory which has been borne out by a century and a half of scientific experiment and discovery. Isaac Newton was a particularly unpleasant individual despised by almost all of his contemporaries, but that has no bearing on the veracity of his work.
        nope....sounds pretty racist to me

        Comment


        • #44
          Darwin also said that as a scientist he believed that Eugenics was the proper way to further the evolution of mankind, but that he couldn't ever support it. He agonized over it in fact. As a scientist he came to realize certain truths, even truths that he loathed morally.

          Comment


          • #45
            I've read the Origin of Man front to back numerous times but never Origin of Species. Darwin was brilliant beyond measure and a man of high morals.

            Comment


            • #46
              well that is the truth of evolution that is the reality of nature if u don't like it then go make own world where everything was made accordingly by your imaginary diety and fairy book.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by RimmyDelicious View Post
                I've read the Origin of Man front to back numerous times but never Origin of Species. Darwin was brilliant beyond measure and a man of high morals.
                Your statement is based on reading one of his books?

                His hypothesis has never been properly verified, simply popularized by Huxley.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Travieso View Post
                  well that is the truth of evolution that is the reality of nature if u don't like it then go make own world where everything was made accordingly by your imaginary diety and fairy book.
                  You're right, and this book called "On the Origin of Species" and "diety" nowdays called "evolution"

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by Norton View Post
                    You're right, and this book called "On the Origin of Species" and "diety" nowdays called "evolution"
                    that is based on observation supported by tons of scientific evidence while yours is backed by ancient stone age mumbo jumbo scribblings of sand people living in desert huts with their camels

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by Travieso View Post
                      that is based on observation supported by tons of scientific evidence while yours is backed by ancient stone age mumbo jumbo scribblings of sand people living in desert huts with their camels
                      I take it you are scientist, right? Wow, i didn't knew that verification is measured by "tones". I thought there are methods - like observation, experiment, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, abstraction, generalization, modeling... How wrong I was! You enlightened me by the name of holy Science, almighty Evolution and their prophet - saint Darwin! Now I can see the truth!: Oh please, enlighten me more, give me tones of holy scientific evidences, oh scientist! Long live, simulacrum!
                      Last edited by Norton; 04-04-2010, 11:58 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP