Was Charles Darwin a Racist ?

[Kompromat]

Darwin's theory had subsequently corroborated and enhanced by genetics, fossil evidence. It is the dominant theory which describes and explains the lifes on earth.
What is 0.01% in probability? Which event are you talking about?

Proof of that is?

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Am i supposed to reply to none sense ?

I know there are "teenagers" here who read & believe what ever comes to their mind on the first instant .

The question is: Darwin being the father of the theory of evolution and evolutionists , not to forget the social Darwinism and being a great scientist who wasn't even a graduate and based his theory of evolution by natural selection in his book "The origin of species " on mare speculation using the scientific of method of "probability" (some times referred as the theory of probability ) which according to the mainstream sceintists is lame and the chances of an actual occurring as a result of a theory based on the probability is 0.01% or less - can come up with such racist "outcome" and how could he justify such "lunacy" through scientific methodology which is reason since he was a sceintist ?


I am expecting a "specific answer" since you believe in reason !

half of the PDF population should be sowing seeds in the fields or cutting wheat crops - not many of these specially indian folks would be able to answer my question. I am just sitting and waiting for an answer !!

Have you heard of the word 'Zeitgeist'?

In the days of Darwin, being contemptuous towards the races being talked about was the trend. Just like in the days of Muhammad, marrying a 9 year old was not considered a crime.

Cultures change with time. People change with time. Zeitgeist changes with time. Everything changes with time.

Calling Charles Darwin a racist on the basis of what he said then would be akin to calling Muhammad pedophile on the basis of his marrying a 9 year old. Both are wrong conclusions taken out of context.

 

[Kompromat]

Lots of "Self styled theologians" are pouring here when the question i am asking is "pure scientific "

 

[desioptimist]

Proof of that is?

Can you lay down your claims, and put supporting evidence and then I will try to argue. I dont even know what you are claiming. Are you saying he is racist?
Are you saying theory of evolution is wrong?

 

[CaptainJackSparrow]

Lots of "Self styled theologians" are pouring here when the question i am asking is "pure scientific "

Ahem..The logic derives from the same flow. Sadly, you don't catch the drift of it.

 

[Spitfighter]

Am i supposed to reply to none sense ?

I know there are "teenagers" here who read & believe what ever comes to their mind on the first instant .

The question is: Darwin being the father of the theory of evolution and evolutionists , not to forget the social Darwinism and being a great scientist who wasn't even a graduate and based his theory of evolution by natural selection in his book "The origin of species " on mare speculation using the scientific of method of "probability" (some times referred as the theory of probability ) which according to the mainstream sceintists is lame and the chances of an actual occurring as a result of a theory based on the probability is 0.01% or less - can come up with such racist "outcome" and how could he justify such "lunacy" through scientific methodology which is reason since he was a sceintist ?


I am expecting a "specific answer" since you believe in reason !

Evolution isn't really a theory, its been proven. I understand it can be hard to grasp but there are plenty of cancer patients out there who owe their lives to genomics (specifically cancer profiling). Science today is obviously very different from back in Darwin's day. His discovery can't be negated simply because he managed to rationalize some bigoted BS. Watson (one of the co-discoverers of the double helix) landed himself in a whole world of trouble for suggesting the same hardly ten years ago.

 

[Kompromat]

Can you lay down your claims, and put supporting evidence and then I will try to argue. I dont even know what you are claiming. Are you saying he is racist?
Are you saying theory of evolution is wrong?

You just would have to go and "read" my post number 08 carefully ! -- I am not talking about the "soci-o-political" aspect of darwin's racism but i am asking for a scientific evidence of what he said about aboriginals and africans , because since he was a sceintist he should be able to provide proof of why he believes in "gradual extermination" of so called "baboons".

 

[SpArK]

The Evolution of Man

Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

 

[Raja.Pakistani]

Darwin suggested how life evolved but was clueless how life created . Evolution is a biological theory not a theory of the meaning of life. It explains how life developed and came to be diverse not what actually started it or what the real purpose of life is. There is no hard and fast evidence indicating who or what was the original creator and we must be willing to maintain open minds as religion and science stand together in offering certain explanations. How did life begin? That is the million dollar question. For the people that lean toward religion the answer is simple. God. This answer requires one little thing that some don't posses. Faith. To believe without having any physical proof. It is the question of how life actually began that makes me think that there is room for both God and Darwinism

 

[desioptimist]

You just would have to go and "read" my post number 08 carefully ! -- I am not talking about the "soci-o-political" aspect of darwin's racism but i am asking for a scientific evidence of what he said about aboriginals and africans , because since he was a sceintist he should be able to provide proof of why he believes in "gradual extermination" of so called "baboons".

You should ask him then( oh it is too late). It is a scientific claim HE made, and providing evidence is his job not mine.
If he did not,and not corroborated independently, then it is not a claim that has much value in science.

 

[President Camacho]

@Aeronaut

Get into the practice of quoting the entire passage and in proper context before trying to malign a great thinker of the past era.

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Now where the heck do you see racism in there???

Ah, before clearing your position, please do define racism - will be quite interesting I am sure.

 

[DaRk WaVe]

Proof of that is?

probably the most comprehensive experiment on evolution, ever

Richard Lenski's Long term Experiment of Evolution started in 1988 & still going, 50k Generations of Bactria studied till 2010

 

[SpArK]

 

[Spitfighter]

Darwin suggested how life evolved but was clueless how life created . Evolution is a biological theory not a theory of the meaning of life. It explains how life developed and came to be diverse not what actually started it or what the real purpose of life is. There is no hard and fast evidence indicating who or what was the original creator and we must be willing to maintain open minds as religion and science stand together in offering certain explanations. How did life begin? That is the million dollar question. For the people that lean toward religion the answer is simple. God. This answer requires one little thing that some don't posses. Faith. To believe without having any physical proof. It is the question of how life actually began that makes me think that there is room for both God and Darwinism

The world needs more open minded folks like yourself. What you've described is what we call a 'theistic evolutionist' which basically means that no one is disputing the existence of god or that he created 'life', simply that the world we see around us today was shaped by processes god put in place and that these are mechanisms we can understand using science.

For example, god created the universe, our earth and atmosphere. The wright brothers simply used the Bernoulli effect to take advantage of the natural principles that god created and invented flight.

 

[Kompromat]

The Evolution of Man

Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution

What does this has to do with the topic ?? -- do you know more work was done on the theory of evolution by a group of sceintists known as neo darwinists than the darwin himself ?

Fossil evidence doesn't prove the original theory of evolution by Charles darwin as in his time no such scientific technique existed.
Charles dawrin wasn't able to define "The cell" and its composition how can he "possibly" identify" the right answer to human beings creation ???

By the way -- lets stick to the original topic of "scientific evidence of darwin's racism" !