Was Darwin Racist and Homophobic at the Same Time?

[Revoltingest]

I wouldn't call Darwin a good fellow, but a racist and homophobe. How could he not know the implications of his theories? Did you read about Darwin's cousin in your link?

The implications you see are merely opinion, not a consequence of the TOE.
That's as silly as the feminist (Sandra Harding) argument that Newton's
Principia is a "rape manual".

What so many believers miss is that physical processes exist whether we consider
them moral or immoral, ie, they just are....waiting for us to discover & understand
them. How we choose to use this understanding is where morality comes into play.

"Statistician and anthropologist

Charles Darwin's cousin, born in 1822, Galton made his name as a geographer of Africa. His later research in statistics and anthropology led him to apply his relative's breakthrough findings to human differences. As a strong proponent of the role of heredity in variations between individuals and groups, his championing of "nature" versus "nurture" was developed in the 1869 book 'Hereditary Genius' and then via the study of twins. In 1883, he coined the word "eugenics", and advocated strategies for improving human stock to give "the more suitable races or strains of blood" a better chance of success. His idea of "negative eugenics", designed to restrict the reproduction of less "fit" populations, would eventually feed into the policies of sterilisation followed by many from Nazi Germany to Social Democratic Sweden."

I don't know how accurate your portrayal of Darwin's cousin is, but one shouldn't
be judged by one's relatives. Are you guilty of every sin committed by yours?

 

[columbus]

It's an interesting phrase that Darwin usurped it for later publication in his book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.". This is a phrase still used today by social Darwinists and fascists.

EDIT: You mentioned Herbert Spencer coining the term which is correct.

Yet, "Social Darwinism as a worldview
Spencer is most (in)famous for applying the concept of survival of the fittest to human society—the strongest and fittest should flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. In his Social Statistics (1851), he opposed welfare systems, compulsory sanitation, free public schools, mandatory vaccinations, and any form of ‘poor law’. Why? Because under ‘social Darwinism’ human social order was the result of evolution—those on top of the heap deserved to be there. The rich were rich because they were more fit and so were entitled to benefit at the expense of the weak, e.g. in the exploitative excesses of capitalism.20

Likewise, superior nations were entitled to dominate native peoples and seize their lands and possessions, e.g. the excesses of colonialism (and the Germans applied this in WW121). He wrote: “A nation which fosters its good-for-nothings will end by becoming a good-for-nothing nation.”22 According to Spencer, not only was survival of the fittest natural, it was morally correct also!"

Herbert Spencer - creation.com

Clearly Spencer didn't believe in Darwin's views on speciation, AKA evolution.
From your quoted article:

Spencer’s theory of evolution was basically Lamarckism, i.e. that organs develop or diminish by use or disuse, and that such changes are inherited by future generations

Apparently Spencer only appreciated Darwin's work when it supported his biases.
Tom

 

[sealchan]

Most of us know that Darwin was racist in his attitude and behavior. The worst is his claim that humans descended from chimpanzee-like-apes. The blacks, especially those in Africa disavow this theory and claim it is racist.

"Long before post-Darwinian “scientific racism” begins to develop, then, one can find blacks being depicted as closer to apes on the Great Chain of Being. Take mid-19th century America in circles in which polygenesis (separate origins for the races) was taken seriously. Leading scientists of the day Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, in their 1854 Types of Mankind, documented what they saw as objective racial hierarchies with illustrations comparing blacks to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

Comparing Black People to Monkeys has a Long, Dark Simian History | The Huffington Post

However, what's not so widely know is Darwin's "survival of the fittest." Darwin and evolutionists claim this the driving force behind natural selection. Here's what it says in Brittanica about the term:
"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations. For example, a woman who rears six healthy offspring has greater fitness than one who rears just two."

This has to do with how a fit male and female are able to pass on their genes. The fittest being the most to procreate. What about LGBTs? Can they pass on their genes? They may be able to, but if they're 100% same-sex then they can't. This seems to allude that Darwin was homophobic. He knew this just about as well as anybody during his time. Imagine that. Science backs the fittest humans as those who can procreate.

Fake news.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Face palm!!

Evolution is real, get over it.

no it isn't obvious evidence it's not; it's globalist stimuli. Telling someone they should be someone they are not when it is obvious that they are not is true definition of racism.
You can tell the bartender doesn't like to much.

So religion keeps them together miss informed and certain educations and "militia" keep them misinformed of it.
It always starts off as "nice."
more and more and more.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

They must be royals now and then keep them poor?
or how "common equality" communal and rush in again....

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Bartenders NEVER look happy when this happens....lol

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Yes children be something your not so we can have global religion via lying stimuli!!!!!!!!!!

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

Are you for real?

Natural selection is close to being a truism and undoubtedly is what happens. Which says absolutely nothing about how people ought to behave.

Science describes nature - it isn't about backing people.

If it's natural selection then we don't need you.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I think they should just move to a volcano and watch their evolution. Globalists they're not always rich and they come in forms and religions (on a volcano sure I mean that's where they evolved from.)
Jesus said momma my time is not yet..True bartender who doesn't like it.
Then I'll save the best for last (think that is what he said)... So you drink this stuff now when Jesus constantly gets crucified.
And oh all you children that got all your stimuli of what you should be.....but you are not come back to religion little ones come back to the father's love?.
And Jesus said my father why has thou forsaken me.
Peter took the land and killed by the power of holy ghost did nothing to herod. Or his men so why cant he do something there????

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

By the classic definition of the term, yes Darwin was racist (or racialist). This is true of many/most of his contemporary European "men of science".

He believed that some races were inherently superior, and that the "lesser races" would die out just like poorly evolved animals do.

"Survival of the fittest " was actually coined by Herbert Spencer, who was a noted "social Darwinist" before such a term even existed, and was one of the most widely regarded public intellectuals.

That's more so Nietzscheism.

 

[George-ananda]

I think mainstream opinions in the 1850's would certainly be classified as racist and homophobic by today's politically correct standards.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

There is reason why Catholicism reverses male and female roles.
dad didn't call...

 

[columbus]

I think mainstream opinions in the 1850's would certainly be classified as racist and homophobic by today's politically correct standards.

Exactly. It wasn't just normal to be bigoted by modern standards, it was nearly universal. From our Founding Fathers to....you name them. They didn't have the benefits of the last couple centuries of ethical improvement to draw on.
Tom

 

[George-ananda]

Exactly. It wasn't just normal to be bigoted by modern standards, it was nearly universal. From our Founding Fathers to....you name them. They didn't have the benefits of the last couple centuries of ethical improvement to draw on.
Tom

And what about us today will leave people cringing in 150 years?

 

[columbus]

And what about us today will leave people cringing in 150 years?

Weapons tech and environmental degradation.
Tom
ETA I sincerely doubt it will be even 50, much less 150. I expect today's children to reap the whirlwind

 

[viole]

Most of us know that Darwin was racist in his attitude and behavior. The worst is his claim that humans descended from chimpanzee-like-apes. The blacks, especially those in Africa disavow this theory and claim it is racist.

"Long before post-Darwinian “scientific racism” begins to develop, then, one can find blacks being depicted as closer to apes on the Great Chain of Being. Take mid-19th century America in circles in which polygenesis (separate origins for the races) was taken seriously. Leading scientists of the day Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, in their 1854 Types of Mankind, documented what they saw as objective racial hierarchies with illustrations comparing blacks to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

Comparing Black People to Monkeys has a Long, Dark Simian History | The Huffington Post

However, what's not so widely know is Darwin's "survival of the fittest." Darwin and evolutionists claim this the driving force behind natural selection. Here's what it says in Brittanica about the term:
"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations. For example, a woman who rears six healthy offspring has greater fitness than one who rears just two."

This has to do with how a fit male and female are able to pass on their genes. The fittest being the most to procreate. What about LGBTs? Can they pass on their genes? They may be able to, but if they're 100% same-sex then they can't. This seems to allude that Darwin was homophobic. He knew this just about as well as anybody during his time. Imagine that. Science backs the fittest humans as those who can procreate.

Even if everything you said is true. How does that invalidate evolution by natural selection?

Do you usually rate naturalistic theories depending on the effects they have on their products?

That includes of course products that make such inferences.

Ciao

- viole

 

[David T]

The worst is his claim that humans descended from chimpanzee-like-apes

? Unless you are claiming that Its totally insulting to chimpanzees to believe we are related I don't understand the statement. Now if you are claiming insult to chimpanzees I would say you have strong circumstantial evidence of that as a fact!!!!!

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Most of us know that Darwin was racist in his attitude and behavior. The worst is his claim that humans descended from chimpanzee-like-apes. The blacks, especially those in Africa disavow this theory and claim it is racist.

"Long before post-Darwinian “scientific racism” begins to develop, then, one can find blacks being depicted as closer to apes on the Great Chain of Being. Take mid-19th century America in circles in which polygenesis (separate origins for the races) was taken seriously. Leading scientists of the day Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, in their 1854 Types of Mankind, documented what they saw as objective racial hierarchies with illustrations comparing blacks to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

Comparing Black People to Monkeys has a Long, Dark Simian History | The Huffington Post

However, what's not so widely know is Darwin's "survival of the fittest." Darwin and evolutionists claim this the driving force behind natural selection. Here's what it says in Brittanica about the term:
"The individuals that are best equipped to survive and reproduce perpetuate the highest frequency of genes to descendant populations. This is the principle known colloquially as “survival of the fittest,” where fitness denotes an individual’s overall ability to pass copies of his genes on to successive generations. For example, a woman who rears six healthy offspring has greater fitness than one who rears just two."

This has to do with how a fit male and female are able to pass on their genes. The fittest being the most to procreate. What about LGBTs? Can they pass on their genes? They may be able to, but if they're 100% same-sex then they can't. This seems to allude that Darwin was homophobic. He knew this just about as well as anybody during his time. Imagine that. Science backs the fittest humans as those who can procreate.

Piling more nonsense together doesn't actually make the individual components less nonsensical.

In fact, the sum is greater than its parts.

 

[Simurgh]

This thing is keeping me out of my catnip patch—not a good thing for all concerned.

So, I decided to just simplify this non-argument to advance things a bit. JB is trolling for people to agree with him that Darwin was a bad boy, hence evolution and natural selection are BAD!! too. That’s the usual xtian tactic. If you have nothing factual to contribute you go and commit logical fallacies, hoping to push readers emotional buttons.

Hasn’t that been done to death yet? Assuming Darwin was right handed, I now feel discriminated against too, and then the male thing, really? Darwin the misogynist? Hate the dude, and his theories aren’t any better. Burn all the research based on the theories developed by Darwin and those who followed his theories. The guy was just horrid. That devalues everything he ever said. He might not have been up on the horror of all horrors—tea with lemon. I am sure he hated that too if the possibility ever crossed his mind, so I guess he would have badmouthed lemons too. Can’t have that.



Darwin = bad boy. Therefore, evolution cannot actually be a good thing either.

Let’s all meet for a prayer with the homophobic pedophiles in church!

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm not saying nature is homophobic. I'm saying Darwin was. His ideas are racist and homophobic today. For example, we got big news about Barry Manilow coming out yesterday. Many people thought he was heterosexual, married and had children. Others had their doubts. Yet, he didn't have any children. What am I supposed to think? This was not a survival of the "fittest." I didn't make these terms up for evolution. It clearly states that the driving force is how procreative one is. It may be a driving force, but it's an outdated concept.

Barry Manilow's ex-wife Susan Deixler on his marriage to Garry Kief | Daily Mail Online

First of all there are many gay people who have kids. Homosexuality is not synonymous with sterility. And in social species it's normal not to have the entire population procreating. As that would be a drain on resources. So gay people not having kids does not go against evolution. Biology fail much?
Secondly considering the absolutely appalling sins committed against gay people by (some) Christians literally in the name of Christianity it's a little rich to harp on about Darwin and by extension evolution being homophobic. Evolution does not try to force gay people into unhappy married lives to appease its beliefs. That would be Christians and their idiotic (and denounced by scientists) Ex Gay "therapy." Hell there's a doco called kidnapped for Christ which exposes the more seedy aspects of this despicable practice (just when you thought it couldn't get worse.) Not to mention all the "abomination" complaints consistently issued by various Churches. I guess that makes Christianity inherently homophobic right?
And at least Darwin was more egalitarian than his contemporaries. Also gee what are the chances that a person living during a time when homosexuality was literally against the law might have been homophobic? Colour me shocked.
Thirdly your slander is not only several logical fallacies (appeal to authority, ad hominem etc) it's a sin. Or did you forget the whole "thou must not bear false witness" thing?
Fourthly evolution does not state what you are implying. Only a racist would say that, because they are twisting evolution for their own warped agenda.