Re: James Watson, Evolutionist & Racist Dirtbag

On Oct 24, 9:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip

It is not enough to show that early evolutionists were racist; you
need to show that evolutionary theory itself predicts or requires that
separate races exist and that some races are inferior to others.

The white men who launched modern evolution theory, beginning with
Darwin, presumed that their success, achieved in a historical context
of colonial conquest and advance, made them superior.

Unfortunately, that was a common belief of the time. It was used by
religious persons and Creationists as well. Science has shown that
such a belief is wrong.

They actually
believed that natural selection selected them.

Well, not exactly. They believed that their success was due to thier
work, and their industry.

If true and, of course,
they certainly believed that evolution was true, racial superiority
became an automatic and logical conclusion.

It's the other way around. Their belief in racial superiority led to
them to misuse ideas of evolutionary biology. Much in the same way
that racist (real meaning) Christians misused such things as "Curse of
Ham" to justify their racism (real meaning).


No Englishman alive,
during the periods in question, felt inferior to any other race, based
on the remarkable accomplishments of Great Britain.

Again, this was a regrettable belief, but not limited to those who
supported Darwin's ideas. Religious leaders and writers believed the
same thing , and felt that they were created superior.

Evolution
"explained" it, they were selected.

Again, evolution could justify their preconcieved beliefs, if they
ignored the real evidence that all "races" are equal.

Logically, there is no where to go
on this: the racism (defined here as superiority belief) already
present prior to 1859 was "confirmed by science" after 1859 in the
minds of Victorian transmutationists.

However the evidence of these "transmutationists" won over the
scientific world. The evidence of evolution still stands, even after
the regrettable ideas of racial superiority died off.

That is why eugenics was so
wildly accepted from the outset ending in the "success" of Nazi-
Germany.

Eugenics were accepted due to a belief that human condition could be
"bettered". This belief, much like your own ideas about "crooked
fingers" was based on biased and baseless beliefs of what was
"beneficial" and what was "detrimental". Actual science shows that
variation in a population is benefical to the species, not a
subjective or "commonsense" idea about what is "normal', or
"superior".

The Nazis ideas were based on the anti-semitism that Luther promoted,
and that religious leaders had promoted for centuries.




I do
not see how you can do this. There is nothing in evolutionary theory
that enables us to predict, from first principles, that there even
ought to be distinct and separate human races (and indeed, many
evolutionists insist that we are all one race, _Homo sapiens
sapiens_).

I never claimed any of this.

Maybe you should be paying closer attention. You are making
accusations of racism (real meaning) based on your own private
meaning. Steven is trying to point out what real racism would
be.




And evolutionary theory certainly does not predict that
some races must be, on average, more intelligent or less self-
controlled or better-looking or more or less anything else than other
races. On the other hand, evolutionary theory does imply that there
will not be any sort of trait, on which you could base a claim of
racial superiority or inferiority, that is shared by all members of
some races and no members of others, although typically racists wish
to make such claims.

In other words, post synthesis and post Nazi-Germany evolution
sanitized their claims in accordance to steadily emerging "political
correctness" sweeping Western nations.

No, this is what evolution really says. Nothing has been
"sanitized". "Political correctness" has nothing to do with this.

But as I have just argued,
initially, white English transmutationists, based on the success of
their theory and Great Britain as a nation, explained and justified
this success scientifically.

No, you have it backwards. It doesn't matter how they justified
their beliefs, their beliefs were wrong. The evidence for evolution
stands whether or not it was used by the British Empire to explain
their success. In earlier times, political or military success was
justified by "God wills it".

That is the original foundation, and
Watson, in spectacular fashion, has confirmed said history as
accurate.

Ray, you really don't make any attempt to understand. You have your
ideas, and no amount of facts will shift them. Watson's regrettable
comments were based on an old "commonsense" idea that IQ tests were an
accurate measure of native intelligence. That idea is false. It has
nothing to do with the British Empire, or "transmutationists".

Where else did he get his ideas?

From some early studies in the 50's and 60's, most likely.

Do you really believe that
Watson feels even remotely inferior to any dark skinned race?

I don't see any evidence that he feels superior to any "dark skinned
race". Most scientists don't consider dark skinned people to be a
"race", but a simple variation. Also, Ray, didn't you refer to the
"dark skinned race" of Egyptians as "sun worshiping camel riders"?

Quite
the contrary as we have seen.

How did Watson's comments show any suggestion that he is superior?



We also know that evolutionists were caging Africans in zoos next apes
as "proof of human evolution" in the early 20th century. And we were
TOLD that evolution was based on evidence. The indignity confirms what
Darwin originally based human evolution on: "similarity to living
apes." Again, his private notebooks compare Fuegians and apes. His
autobiography admits that he assumed for human evolution immediately
after accepting species mutability in 1839!

To take your last point first, what reason is there to except humans
from the same biological principles (in this case, common descent with
modification) that apply to the rest of the living world?

The point is that Darwin, however honest, admitted that it was
assumed.

No, he admitted it was based on evidence.

That is the crucial fact at this juncture. Said assumption
was, of course, rooted in his preexisting racism.

Actually, it was based on his observations, and solid evidence.

If you want to claim
that much later on it was justified then you can (even though we would
disagree) but again, the point is that it was assumed.

It was not. It was based on observation and evidence.


Of course
once Darwin grasped the idea of common descent, he applied it to
humans (note, by the way, that there was precedent -- in the person
and writings of Lamarck -- for accepting human evolution, although
Lamarck came around to the idea of COMMON descent only towards the end
of his life). Accepting human evolution is no greater a break with
tradition or religious doctrine than accepting animal and plant
evolution: even Genesis describes human and animal origins in the same
terms, implying that what applies to one must apply to the other.

What version of Genesis are you reading, one translated by Ken Miller
(LOL!)?

Ray, have you ever bothered to read Genesis?


Absolute rubbish, unsupported opinion, and contrary to the facts of
history, I am sorry.

This is a good description of most of your posts, Ray. And you are a
sorry excuse for a human....

Nobody prior to 1859 claimed that Genesis or
"tradition[al] religious doctrine" (as you put it) supported
evolution, and nobody today does except brazen liars known as Theistic
evolutionists.

Ray, no one is claiming that "Genesis" or "religious doctrine"
supported evolution before 1859. However there is nothing in Genesis
that rules out the possibility of evolution. God tells us that he
created. It does not say how he did.


Prior to 1859, transmutation was a back alley theory at best.

No, it was a valid idea that had not been fully supported. Lamarck,
and others had noted the fact that life had changed, and tried to
produce a theory to explain it. It was Darwin, and Wallace that came
up with the workable theory to explain the changes.

Not too
many people know that despite accepting human evolution, Lamarck
accepted limited spontaneous generation generated by the Creator for
certain productions.


Because he didn't have a workable mechanism by which life changed.

He never postulated branching, though, "irregular
arrangement" is how some scholars describe it.

That's why Darwin is remember, while Lamarck is largely dismissed.
The branching pattern of evolution is immistakable.


But let it be known that human evolution is blasphemy in the face of
the Biblical Deity.

You've claimed this before, but never explained why is should be.
Why is evolution , human evolution in particular "blasphemy in the
face of the Biblical Deity"? How does it blaspheme to point that
that God can use whatever means of creation he wishes? And your
own claims that you, and only you understand God's plans itself smacks
of blasphemy.



snip what Ray ignored


DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • "A fish out of water". (Explaining the MYTH of *racism*)
    ... When did the responsibility for the evolution of African ... people (and other recently discovered primitive races) ... lack of progress or inventiveness since the dawn of mankind ... The cradle of mankind is southern Africa, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Darwin the dunce founder? of modern evolution
    ... their logical conclusion in his effort to aid and abet the evolution ... Nazism were clearly deeply influenced by Darwinism, ... Race and elimination of the inferior races: ... Haeckel argued that the developement of the embryo repeated the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Racism is The Fruit of Darwinism
    ... "Survival of the Most Favored Races". ... different evolutionary paths-i.e., different apes and monkeys). ... Darwin thought the peoples of Tierra del Fuego greatly resembled apes ... hence the origin of the idea of human evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Racism is The Fruit of Darwinism
    ... "Survival of the Most Favored Races". ... different evolutionary paths-i.e., different apes and monkeys). ... Darwin thought the peoples of Tierra del Fuego greatly resembled apes ... hence the origin of the idea of human evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Why You May Never Comprehend Human Evolution
    ... when it comes to evolutionary theory is to defeat ... selection' does not mean that selection does not ... Human evolution began when our chimpanzee-like ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)