Was Charles Darwin a racist?

Well said William but I fear the DUP are more interested in creating a theocracy than listening to reasoned argument.

What a piece of pernicious nonsense.The context of the article is Mervyn's demand that the Ulster Museum stage a creationist display or he will take legal action against them on the grounds of equality.Our equality legislation is not even applicable to this type of exhibition.
As for his quoting Darwin. Nearly any nineteenth century figure can be made to look racist in our terms. I have already posted quotes from Abraham Lincoln on this blog where he sets out his stance on black people holding high office or even intermarriage with whites from a debate held in 1858 but he went on to initiate one of the great advances in racial equaity in the United States.
The views of Mervyn Storey are both stupid and ridiculous, and if it was'nt for his threatening tone and high office they would just be ignored.

Presumably this post springs from DUP assembly member and evangelical Mervyn Storey threatening legal action against the Ulster Museum in Belfast, unless it holds a creationist exhibition alongside it's Darwin one.
Storey, amongst other things, accused Darwin of being racist, presumably using his description of aboriginal peoples on Tierra del Fuego (as "savages") in 'The Descent of Man' as an example. (As though attempting to discredit Darwin somehow acts to make creationism more credible. As with any claim, the basis and evidence for Biblical creationism can be examined and judged independently of an alternative.)

Darwin's beliefs were of his era; he did believe that the white race was superior to others and that men were superior to women. (Ideas about genetic determinism remain controversial today.)
Applying this theory of natural selection to his world Darwin thought "the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world". (Something the Romans probably also thought as well; plus ca change.)

However, Darwin also saw first-hand how slaves were treated on South American plantations and thought it an "odious, deadly subject" and declared "I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country."
Darwin held to the conviction he grew up with, that human beings must not be bought, sold or owned; fraternity was a principle that he also contributed to with his theory of common descent from a common racial parentage.
Later in his life Darwin would sit and converse with a "full-blooded negro" though some visiting Americans thought such intimacy "revolting".

Darwin saw sexual selection, in which small preferences shaped the appearances of populations over time, as a means by which races with a common origin could have acquired their visible differences. (Genetics was unknown to Darwin at that time, but buttresses his theory of evolution.)
But as to belief that all people, whatever their race, are truly equal and should be treated as equals; Darwin's views were shaped by the contemporary Victorian English assumption that some races (white European in particular) were superior to others; a view often used to justify imperialism and colonialism.

That Victorian era world view still surfaces occasionally today. Philosophical and political debates about equality - and equality of rights - are still current and relevant as ever.

Yet more evidence, if any were needed that NI swims in a sea of prejudice: Robinson, Wilson, Storey. What a collection! Mloreover, not one local newspaper covered the Darwin 200 anniversary, whereas the Irish Times had 2 pages devoted to it.

Since it demonstrates that, far from being separate and different, all human beings belong to one biological race, evolution actually refutes racism. In America in the 19th century it was the biblical creationists who generally supported slavery. Darwin’s whole family were abolitionist and it was his grandfather Josiah Wedgwood who produced the famous cameo depicting a kneeling slave begging: “Am I not a man and a brother”, a motto Darwin himself used in his notes.
In nature, it is not every animal for itself. Co-operation and altruism are as essential as competition. All social animals are dependent for survival on group life. Blackbirds and thrushes give warning calls when hawks fly overhead, even though it puts them in danger. Wolves and wild dogs bring meat back to other members of the pack. In many human societies, free health care and the welfare state have greatly weakened human differences and the process of mechanical natural selection.
In his Descent of Man Darwin argued that we evolved from a long line of animals that care for the weak and build co-operation with reciprocal transactions. He argued for a strong continuity between human and animal behaviour and that human morality would be impossible without certain emotional building blocks that are clearly at work in chimp and monkey societies.
In fact, far from individualism, nihilism or racism being the ethical implications of Darwinism, the relevant philosophical inference for humanity is existentialism. We have no proven purpose or fixed essence but instead we make up our own meanings and purposes. Evolution implies that we are part of nature and that we change. Like other creatures, we are not essentially good or bad but have the potential to be either. We are not static creatures but have the ability to evolve.

If Mervyn Storey reckons only those with politically correct views by today's standards should be on pedestals, he should hire a truck to knock down most of the public statues in this province...and sack many of his party colleagues.

The answer could hardly matter less because the question is irrelevant. Darwin's controversy isn't over what he was but what his theories said. Whatever the answer, it does not add or subtract one iota from the validity of his theories.

Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? His plan for the freed slaves after the Civil War was to return them to Africa. Some would call that racist.

Were some aboriginal people savages? Despite the perjorative connotations this term has acquired, the undeniable answer is yes. All of our ancestors were at one point savages...until they had developed to the point of barbarism. But evolution of society to reach a state of civilization has nothing to do with the biological evolution of living organisms even though many sociologists would like to elevate their area of expertise, such as it is, to the point where the majority of us mistake it for a science. They even call it "the social sciences." Marx called Communism "scientific socialism." Attaching the term "science" to many worthless and even dangerous dogmas such as Christian Science and Creation Science is an effort to enoble trash.

It's a pity that we haven't yet come to the end of this Storey.

Happily, his efforts will fail - equality legislation is inapplicable in this. Fantasy does not merit equality with science.

As for Darwin, he was not a racist, but in Victorian times it was considered self-evident that other races were inferior to the European White Male. If there were to be a scale of offence, Darwin would actually be one of the *least* offensive.

But evolution is so so so much more than "Darwinism" - he knew nothing of genetics, yet our modern understanding of genetics not only confirms evolution as a fact, but makes it absolutely *inevitable*. It is an unavoidable consequence of how biology works.

-H

And indeed our ancestors *were* savages. And you don't have to go back too long to see that. We still *are* savages, only, perhaps, more so.

-H

Steady on, Helio. at least, we don't boast of our savagery in the way that those biblical heroes did. If you consider the ancient codes of the Assyrians and the Israelites, you'll find that they made a distinction between their own people and outsiders and openly boasted about their cruelty to the latter. Assyrian kings boasted in stone tablets about how they tortured their non-Assyrian enemies and covered the valleys and mountains with their corpses. The Israelites boasted how they destroyed all the inhabitants of Jericho, Ai, Lachish and Hazor so that 'there was not any left to breathe'.

Perhaps we are more clever at spin and propaganda than they were. After all, they didn't have a largely compliant media. The Israelis can slaughter 400 Gaza children in three weeks and claim with impunity or little challenge that, alas, they 'got in the way'.

Brian

I had read all the way down to post 8 and was for staying out of it but then post 9...

Tell me please, exactly, what another anti biblical rant has to do with this thread?

:-)

And please don't go making assumptions about what I might and might not support.

Oh all right then.

Amalekites.

The Prophet Samuel was not only an appalling racist, he was a genocidal maniac. Of course YHWH is a racist too, explicitly so for punishing children for the sins of their fathers, and creating "races" (like in the nonsense of Shem, Ham & Japheth). Indeed, Jesus was a racist too, making a distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and even referring to Canaanites as "dogs".

Mervyn is the pot calling the kettle coloured. Last time I checked, that was called "hypocrisy".

Ach Helio don't get your knickers in a twist.

We're talking about Darwin here. We all already know what accusations have been aimed at Christianity. (that wouldn't make you (not you personally of course) a racist or anything, would it.?)


Just for the record, I happen to think that trying to discredit Darwin by calling him a racist was dumb, but maybe I should hold fire on the dumb bit til I read his article!

But the point here is that the default mode of some people on this blog appears, whatever the topic, to be anti-Christian, and vociferously so at times.

So whether it was 'of his (Darwin's) time' or not, is it possibly to discuss the racism of the Victorian and British Empire which permeated everything including the hymn writers of the day. Helio, I don't have a problem in facing up to either the misuse of the bible or the violence in it.

You can't object to what are seen as the unsavory aspects of biblical history while at the same time dismissing other historical racism as 'of the time'.

Now, were there aspects of Darwin's views which would have gotten him in trouble today or not. The words, "This is undoubtedly the case." at the top of this thread suggest there were.

So maybe, without reference to the bible, you could give us a view on why he wasn't racist.

Some pots around here seem to think they're 'lily white.'

"The answer could hardly matter less."

Exactly. And the answer would be boring whatever it was.

Peter, forgive me, but this issue was raised because a certain idiot named Mervyn Storey brought it up. Said idiot is a fundamentalist Christian, so pots and kettles are eminently suitable topics. If you worry about poor wee Christianity being a continual target, perhaps that is because it provides such a good example of the evils that can come from religious belief. A target-rich environment. It's just the case - no point weeping about it.

But was Darwin a racist? He undoubtedly had some prejudices born of the society in which he was raised, but he was a man of great compassion and general goodness - at least that is the opinion of most of his biographers, and is the impression one gets from his writings. We detect Victoriana there, not what we would in these more enlightened times detect as "racism".

But if you *do* want to be fair, then just ask "was the Prophet Samuel an evil genocidal maniac", and we can have a discussion about how killing people under the orders of some imaginary pixie is also "of its time" - that latter would seem the more important issue.

-H

Hi Helio

Forgiven - how could a Christian not forgive :-)

First up I'm not worried about 'poor wee Christianity' in the slightest.

Second, it's all very well saying Victoriana, but that seems a tad naive in light of what some of what the Victorians were up to. Probably fair to say that there was a culture of imperialism.

Anyhow, I'm wondering which of the premises in your last paragraph should I query first, and then I find myself reading John's comment 13... he has a point.

Here's a controversial comment tho', you think the orders of a sky pixie are the more important issue. Mmmmm, maybe you and I, as citizens of the state are guilty, by association, of some of the excesses of the Empire.

Come to think of it maybe we're not racist, but we all benefit from cheap 3rd world labour, and nobody bats an eyelid. It's called globalisation, but perhaps it's Western Imperialism, maybe it's even Western racism. We could discuss that. You know, contemporary evils we all are happy to live with, contemporary evils we dismiss as 'Victoriana'. This is the point Mervyn seems to miss too. The DUP are forever raising non-issues.

There are good things we could all be doing to make the world a (slightly) better place without always having to score points.

You see, I'm still interested in why attacking Christianity is the default mode when there are plenty of 'everyday and close to home' sins to be concerned with.

What colour is the pot anyway?

Bloody hell! tell me the old, old Storey!

Instead of threatening legal action (which seems to be the default postion of fundie nutters) against the Belfast Museum why the hell does he his creationist buddies not go out and actually find the actual evidence that would back up their position! It's so bloody simple! evidently not simple enough for them.

"There are good things we could all be doing to make the world a (slightly) better place without always having to score points."

Well he (Mervyn) started it!

;-)

It's worth noting that Mr Storey has also called for the proposed Giant's Causeway visitors' centre to display not just accepted geological data, but also the creationist argument that the distinctive rock formation is only 6,000 years old: "The problem to date has been that we only have a narrow interpretation from an evolutionary point of view as to how these particular stones were formed." (Blimey! Does he think that rocks reproduce and geologists claim that they've been formed through a process of natural selection, as plants and animals are?)

Storey has also said his 'ideal' would be the removal of evolutionary teaching from the curriculum altogether.
https://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/0807/1218047756470.html

On the racism angle: If Galileo (who probably shared many of the views commonly held by 17th Century Europeans) was found to have views on race at odds with those held today, would that mean that the earth was the fixed, stationary centre of the Universe and that the sun orbited around it?

Of course not; the two are separate points and Galileo's opinions would not invalidate the evidence accumulated since that demonstrate that the earth and other planets do indeed orbit the sun. So it is also with Darwin and evolution.

I wonder if any such court case will be Norn Iron's very own Dover ?

After Sammy Wilson's nonsense over the last few days we have yet again hit the headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Time to post this again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF2AxlQsYE

Oh for Pete's sake! No-one is saying that Darwin was some sort of saint (although he puts most of the conventional religious "saints" to shame). He got a lot of stuff wrong (again, unsurprising). But he should be admired for his superb insight and scientific brilliance. Levelling an accusation of "racism" at him is simply ridiculous, and the evidence that has been adduced for that is incredibly meagre.

You've got to ask, is this the *best* Mervyn can come up with? It probably is.

All I am saying is that I don't think anyone who has commented thus far is in a position to slag off Charles Darwin, and since the majority of the slagging off is derived from religious fundamentalist fantasies, it is entirely appropriate that some ire is directed at those fantasies.

-H

Peter, I don't think we'll be seeing a Dover in this. Mervyn is bluffing, and he knows it.

-H

All hot and bothered Helio?

I think I was the one who used 'dumb' in relation to the accusation against Darwin.

My comments aren't about Darwin, they are about the infantile desire on the part of some to go 'a bible bashing' at the drop of a hat.

You know it probably is the best the DUP can do, they probably think they're being clever, but frankly it's no more tiresome than the 'bad bible' brigade.

So get cross at 'fantasies' if you wish, but if people are going to throw out cheap jibes on a continual basis, I'm gonna notice.

Hello petermorrow,

You compare the Darwin bashing to bible bashing. Would you say that the two make for a fair comparison in terms of how much each of them leaves room for criticism? I would say one is humongously more deserving of criticism than the other (I'll leave it to you to figure out which one). In one case there is plenty of room for real, substantial criticism that even many of the devotees agree with. In the other case it's just the lack of any substantial criticism which makes nutters come up with utterly pathetic stuff. You saying 'both shouldn't bash so much' sounds as if you want to put them on the same level. Which I think would be wrong.

greets,
Peter

Hi Peter

Where did I equate Darwin bashing with Bible bashing?

I said bashing Darwin was dumb?

The only aspect of this whole sorry tale where I equated one with the other was when I used the word tiresome.

Yet you, Helio and Brian still have to persist with getting across some kind of anti-bible point.

And then you wonder why people get cheesed off.

Frankly its all as predicable as the DUP.

Helio - your post # 7 - you say: "Fantasy does not merit equality with science".

Really?

Funny, William, how all the nuancing and contextualising of Darwin's "racism" is wheeled out. Perhaps a bit more thought could be put into comments on the Pope.

Welcome back, by the way.

Darwin was far from perfect.
However before Creationists try and tar Darwin with the Racist brush, they should look at others from said time, including Darwin opponent (and Theist), Geologist Louis Agassiz, or the Presbyterian Theologian and philosopher Robert Louis Dabney.

Peter:

In post 10 you said of my post 9:
"Tell me please, exactly, what another anti biblical rant has to do with this thread?".

Helio made the remark, possibly tongue-in-cheek, that we are 'more savage' today than in the past.

The Bible AND cuneifom tablets about Assyrians (you've forgotten about them) are evidence that in one important respect this is not so. The Bible, whether you like it or not, is an insight into the cruel morality of the times, as are other ancient primary sources, such as the tablets.

Many of the writers of the Old Testament told stories in which the heroes (Joshua) or whoever slaughtered their enemies with boastings and the blessings of 'the Lord'. It was the same in Assyrian tablets.

Assurnbanipal boasted: "For a distance of a month of 25 days' journey I devastated the land of Elam. The noise of the people, the tread of cattle and sheep, the glad shouts of rejoicing, I banished them from its fields".

The point was that leaders today do not boast of their battles, wars and conquests in the way that, say, Assurnbanipal and Joshua did. And that is moral evolution of a sort, I dare say. Today, especially in democracies, leaders have to justify their actions to their people.

The point I also raised that was lost in your customary red herring defence of the indefensible (i.e. the Bible), is that all too often their 'justifications' today are not sufficiently challenged in the media. In that respect we have not advanced much since ancient times, though the storytellers then might even have exaggerated the boasts.

Hi Brain

Thankyou for your reply, I appreciate your reply.

A couple of things, I hadn't forgotten about the Assyrians, but didn't refer to them as they don't usually come in for the kind of criticism the biblical characters do, as I said there appears to be a certain default mode at times on here.

If your post 9 was making the point that todays leaders do not boast as ancient others did, then why not just say that, and why go for the biblical, there are endless examples from history which you could have used to make the same point, but no, it has to be the bible again, that is what I was flagging up.

I was also making the point that Victorian racism and the degree to which it did or didn't influence the people of the day has been rationalized away as being 'of it’s time' - So that makes it OK then? You will note too that I was able to criticize Victorian hymn-writers for their use of Imperialism in what they wrote, I try not (thought I am not always successful) to avoid the unpalatable aspects of my faith.

Let me say again, so everyone here is crystal clear, that I think using racism as a weapon again Darwin was dumb thing to do; as Orvillethird points out, others were guilty too, in fact the best part of the culture was probably guilty, and in the same way, while we may not, or at least some of us may not boast about great war victories, we are guilty of other forms of Imperialism and racism, but nobody seems to want to discuss that.

Peter:

Hold on here. Isn't this partly a blog about religion? Why not mention the Bible? It is a perfect example of how cruelty can be condoned by reference to a higher authority's approval of it. Indeed, what has happened with it and other Holy Books is that they have been used over and over to justify war and brutality on a massive scale.

And there are those who try to excuse its approval of these atrocities or turn a blind eye to them. So, yes, there is every reason to criticise it on these grounds.

As I said above, it was used by supporters of slavery to justify their beliefs and behaviour. So it is a bit ironic of Mervyn Storey to refer to Darwin as a racist when Darwin’s notebooks condemn slavery and when the greatest racists in 19th century America were usually fundamentalist Christians.

Brian

I've said numerous times now that to refer to Darwin as a racist was dumb.

I've acknowledged on numerous occasions, on other threads, and this one, that Christians got it wrong, they have been racist, misogynist, cruel, and Imperialist.

I've also said before that the bible has been used to justify war. (wrongly)

Can I be any clearer?

But there are a number of unanswered points on this thread.

Irrespective of Mr. Storey, was the culture of Darwin's day racist, and is it sufficient to pass it off as, 'of it's day'?

There a perception on my part of an automatic anti-bible response, is there any validity in this?

Why is the flagging up of our own Imperialism and racism with regard to how we treat the world, and it has been mentioned 2 or 3 times now, ignored?

Yes, this blog is partly about religion and yes you can pillory it all you want (remember though I'm up for the dual with you) but my question, which comes again is, why has an anti-bible/religion response become the norm?

It's beginning to sound like, "Wolf!, Wolf!"

If the topic of Victorian attitudes on race is to be discussed, it may be worth starting with English prejudice towards Irish peoples.

For example, this by Charles Kingsley (The Water Babies etc) - a progressive and social reformer in his time:

"I am haunted by the human chimpanzees I saw [in Ireland] - I don't believe they are our fault - But to see white chimpanzees is dreadful. . . "
https://www.victorianweb.org/history/race/Racism.html

SheffTim

Fair enough.

Poor church. They were just beginning to get over Galileo when Darwin comes along. It's tough having to completely rewrite your dogma to adjust to the latest inconvenient facts and still look like you were right all along. That's why after going from being at the center of the universe and the sole purpose of all creation to being a mere insignificant fleeting speck of dust that appeared for one moment and will disappear in the next in a universe without limit or end, the recent discovery that the Milky Way galaxy is twice as large as had previously been believed and is now thought to be the size of the great Spiral Nebula in Andromeda went almost completely unnoticed. So now our sun is not one of around 400 billion stars in our galaxy but of nearly a trillion. That fact will hardly take any further adjustment by the church at all. Trivial compared to Darwin.

Brian McClinton, Heliopolitan, Dylan Dog, Peter Klaver (and any other interested parties)

Just thought that you guys might like to know that The Primordial Soup Company due the economic downturn is giving away quantities of their famous product for any of you with the courage to try and create any thing that might be described as 'Life'.

They are saying that if the giveaway does not go well that they are thinking of adding some DNA to the mix in the form of croutons and bacon bits. They are hoping that this may facilitate the desired outcome of creating 'Life' without biasing the results too much.

They are also thinking of selling a new product line. It is being marketed as Vacuum Packed Nothing and is aimed at those who want to start with hopefully a 'not so big bang'!

Dylan, you could build the tools of the experiment.

Heliopolitan, you could use the Primordial Soup and when it does not produce the aforementioned 'Life' you can explain the results away.

Peter could ask for an advanced order of Vacuum Packed Nothing and at that stage you might wish that you were studying what the 'I' is.

Brian, you could then sum the whole enterprise up and explain why this all goes to show that God is not real and that Christians are the ones to blame for the failure to produce 'Life'!

Happy experimenting guys!

Post Script. Hot of the press! I hear someone called Campbell wants to offer sponsorship for anyone taking up the offer!

Hello davidjagnew,

"Just thought that you guys might like to know that The Primordial Soup Company due the economic downturn is giving away quantities of their famous product for any of you with the courage to try and create any thing that might be described as 'Life'.

They are saying that if the giveaway does not go well that they are thinking of adding some DNA to the mix in the form of croutons and bacon bits. They are hoping that this may facilitate the desired outcome of creating 'Life' without biasing the results too much."

The company is wasting its soup, bacon and croutons. Extensive high quality research has shown that new life doesn't appear from food stuffs. If you look at the thoroughness of the investigation, there's just no denying it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qq1HOxwFZCY&feature=related

greets,
Peter

Smasher you are being defensive again about any negative news story involving the Pope. The BBC covered the story correctly: you can't blame reporters if the Pope made a blunder by reinstating a holocaust denier. At least, the Pope has now seen the error of his ways.

Augustine:

Has he? Or surely you mean the plural? In fact, this ultra-reactionary Pope has produced a 'Syllabus of Errors'. He has offended Turks by opposing their country's membership of the EU on the grounds that Europe is a 'Christian continent'. He has offended gays by claiming that they are as great a threat to humankind as global warming. He has offended Muslims by implying that Islam is an inherently violent creed. He has offended Protestants by telling them that they do not belong to ‘proper churches’.

So offending German Jews by planning to reinstate an anti-semitic bishop is just the most recent in a litany of 'errors'.
Turks, Gays, Muslims, Jews, Protestants are apparently all fair game. How do Christians in general feel about church leaders who seem so exclusive and intolerant? Surely, this is not what Christianity is meant to be about?

As for Mervyn Storey, he was partly trying to distract from the significance of the celebration of Darwin's birthday. Even the Pope, with all his deficiencies (or, rather, the last one) has accepted evolution).

Peter:

My essential point remains that rulers no longer boast of their cruelty and I shall reinforce it, whether you like it or not.

The ancient rulers and their people were happy to broadcast their inhumaity or have it reported. This was true whether we are talking about the ancient Israelites or the Assyrians, The Bible is a good source partly because many people here are familiar with it, or think they are. Here are a few examples

1. In Chronicles we are told that King David "brought out the people that were in it, and cut them with saws, and with harrows of iron, and with axes..." (I Chronicles 20:3) This is about David slaughtering captives after the cessation of hostilties.

2. "And Gideon said, Therefore when the Lord hath delivered Zebah and Zalmunna into mine hand, then I will tear your flesh with the thorns of the wilderness and with briers" (Judges 8:7)

3. "Now Zebah and Zalmunna were Karkor, and their hosts with them, about fifteen thousand men, all that were left of all the hosts of the children of the east: for there fell an hundred and twenty thousand men that drew sword" (Judges 8:10)

4. "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" (I Samuel 15:2-3).

5. "And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem" (II Samuel 12:31).

6. "And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." (Deuteronomy 2:34)

7. "And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves" (Deuteronomy 3:6-7).

8. "And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword" (Joshua 6:21).

Now, of course, the Israelites and the Assyrians were enemies. In Isaiah (ch10) we read: "O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger and the staff in whose hand is mine indignation".

Assyrians, like the Israelites, boasted of their cruelty on monuments that exist in museums to this day.

For example: 
1. "I cut off their heads and formed them into pillars".
2. "Bubo, son of Buba, I flayed in the city of Arbela and I spread his skin upon the city wall".
3. "I flayed all the chief men who had revolted, and I covered the pillar with their skins".
4. "Many within the border of my own land I flayed, and spread their skins upon the walls".
5. "3,000 captives I burned with fire".
6. "Their corpses I formed into pillars".
7. "From some I cut off their hands and their fingers, and from others I cut off their noses, their ears, and their fingers, of many I put out their eyes".
8. "I made one pillar of the living, and another of heads, I bound their heads to posts round about the city".

Sennacherib claimed to have Hezekiah captured in his own royal city (Jerusalem), 'like a caged bird'.

However, we are told "Then the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned" (Is. 37:33-37).

These conflicts between the Israelites and the Assyrians are recorded in the Bible and on stone tablets and monuments. They are quite open about the pain and sufering they inflicted. Life was nasty, brutish and short. We would like to think we have evolved morally since those cruel times.

Evolution can be applied morally as well as physically'. Remember Lecky's expanding circle in his History of European Morals:

"At one time the benevolent affections embraced merely the family, soon the circle expanding includes first a class, then a nation, then a coalition of nations, then all humanity, and finally, its influence is felt in the dealings of man with the animal world".

In rhetoric, at least, we have moved through these stages.

David

Thats abiogenesis you are talking about-bugger all to do with evolution(yawn).

Why no present the positive evidence for your own position-but creationists never do that. Instead they wish to foist onto us an "explanation" that is that stupid and useless that even they do not use-and when you actually think about it...that is quite spectacularly stupid.

I am reminded of this maxim when dealing with creationists...

You should never argue with an idiot: the best possible outcome is that you win an argument with an idiot.

Regards

DD

Hello Brian

I am not suffering from the delusion that my feelings about your comments might cause you to desist from writing them, nor should they, I made that quite clear in my last set of thoughts, as I said, say what you like.

My main point is that there is a tendency, no, it's stronger than a tendency, more of a reflex action, which demonstrates one's antipathy towards Christianity. Now look, I'm not expecting you, or any other atheist on here to go easy, but as I have said it's getting awfully predictable and there seems to be no good reason for it; it's almost as if any tenuous link will do.

And, as if to substantiate the impression I have of this along comes post 39 as evidence.

But just before I comment on that, I shall say again that I haven't ever in any way tried to either deny the violence recorded in the bible or those aspects of Christian history which are just plain wrong. We all know that people do bad things.

Having said that I'm wondering why you felt the need to reinforce the point with such vigour, only you of course can answer that.

You say too that we have evolved morally, have we? Personally I wouldn't call the dexterous use of rhetoric progress.

A cursory glance at this weeks papers will demonstrate how far we have to go. Indeed I'm tempted to quote the bible myself, there ain't all that much new under the sun.

And in your predilection for biblical quotes you entirely forgot to comment on the pervasive racism and Imperialism of Victorian times. Funny how I can't escape the thought that if a Victorian Christian, say for example someone like Anthony Ashley-Cooper had hit the headlines being accused of racism, then we'd have heard all about the ills of the Christian faith. Why is that I wonder.

I'm still thinking too of the topic no one wants to touch, modern Western racism, you know the sort which keeps the 3rd world in poverty so we can buy cheap goods. 80 percent of the world lives on 10 dollars a day, that's the price of the coffee and bun I bought yesterday. I'm sure you don't need the rest of the statistics, you'll know them as well as I do, perhaps better, but please Brian don't pretend we're morally superior to the ancient 'savages', we've just taken our sins and tied them up with ribbons and bows.

Petermorrow, you keep bashing on about Victorian racism and Darwin but remember, he was technically a Christian for a lot of his life, even destined for the ministry, at one stage, so your arguments are a bit self-defeating don't you think.

Nobledebee


Self-defeating?

First of all I'm not trying to promote the idea that Darwin was a racist, that's what Storey was doing and I said I thought it was a dumb thing to do. As Brian said, he (Storey), was probably trying to pull some kind of diversion stunt.

What I have been trying to point out basically amounts to 2 or 3 things.

(1) The default mode which links Christianity and the bible to every ill.

(2) The fact that on this thread some have tried to dismiss Victorian racism as 'of it’s day', although, you never know, now that you have pointed out that Darwin and indeed most of the Victorians were Christians, or at least paid lip service to Christianity, maybe their racism will become unpalatable all of a sudden.

(3) Our racism, in the form of Western financial Imperialism, which everyone is still ignoring, in an attempt to point out that whatever the sins of the past, we have plenty of our own to be going on with.

You will notice too that with almost ever comment I have made, I have been the one to acknowledge and highlight Christian wrongs, past and present, including the Imperialism of the Victorian hymn writers.

Self-defeating?

Maybe you have a thought on the three basis points above, they have been outlined at various times in posts 12, 15, 22, 24, 29, 31, 41 and here again now.

Of course Darwin was a racist, his publications and theories were used by the Nazi regime to influence their race policies.

Peter:
Predictability is a description that can be made of many comments, including your own. you are diverting away from the point, which is that morality has evolved from ancient times.

Note that I referred to the Old Testament only, which you have equated with Christianity.

Indeed, Christianity is a good example of precisely this evolution to which I am referring.
It was an advance on the earlier ethic of an eye for an eye.

So, now, Peter, there I am, praising Christianity!!

Augustine - my point it that where people are basically supportive of someone they make the effort to provide context and nuance, rather than going straight for the "Darwin was racist" approach. Your own post #37 uses expression "reinstating a holocaust denier" which is entirely untrue. The Pope has removed excommunication, in the same way it was removed of the Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans in 1960s by Paul VI. Williamson hasn't been "reinstated" as he was never a Catholic bishop to begin with. Williamson is a long way from becoming a Catholic bishop. In fact, as a direct result of the Pope's actions his own people have looked more closely at him and he's been removed from his post as director of seminary in Argentina. The same sort of thing happened after the Regensberg address, with many genuine Islamic scholars addressing issues of violence and Islam.

Pope Benedict is a good man, who towers above those who attack him, revealing their own racism with their attacks on his German roots.

"Of course Darwin was a racist, his publications and theories were used by the Nazi regime to influence their race policies." #44

Darwin never wrote about Eugenics and knowledge of how genes passed on inherited traits was unknown at the time he wrote 'Origin of the Species'.
Eugenics emerged from the later realization that traits are inherited, as well as genetic disorders.
Darwin did not advocate eugenic policies, in fact evolution theory helped overturn the widely held belief in the divine superiority of the 'white race'. (Darwin's books and others on Natural Selection were on the Nazi's list of 'banned' books.)
The primary 'scientific racists' were creationists who believed that science supported Biblical scripture, and that scripture supported slavery and the domination of one group over another.

In 1853 the Frenchman Arthur de Gobineau published 'An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races', in which he proposed that humans were composed of three races, the most advanced of which was the "Aryan Race".
Gobineau argued that civilizations collapsed due to race mixing. This work was highly influential in Europe and America and is widely acknowledged today as the foundation of so-called 'scientific racism'.

In 1857, one year before 'The Origin of Species' was published, Josiah C. Nott and George Gliddon (creationists who argued that science supported the Biblical account of creation) published 'Indigenous Races of the Earth', based on phrenology (a pseudo-science that claims relationships between a person's character and the shape of the skull).
They stated "Nations and races, like individuals have each an especial destiny: some are born to rule, and others to be ruled. And such has ever been the history of mankind. No two distinctly marked races can dwell together on equal terms." - Josiah Nott, M.D; ‘Types of Mankind’. 1854.

Hitler was not a Darwinist and did not accept Darwinian evolution. Hitler was a creationist - or at least used creationist arguments - who believed that races and species were created by God, intended to remain distinct and separate:
"The most marvellous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator." - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table-talk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier).
Hitler explicitly argues that humans could not have evolved from apes:
a) "From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
b) "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Hitler's detestation of Jews was rooted in Christian anti-Semitism. The Nazi state incorporated an official Protestant church. Hitler professed himself to be a Christian and often referred to Christianity in support of his persecution of Jews. e.g. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." - Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936.

Those that argue that evolution caused the Holocaust refuse to acknowledge the centuries of Christian anti-Semitism in Europe; there are many documented persecutions, pogroms and expulsions, over hundreds of years, throughout Europe.
One can trace anti-Jewish belief in Christianity as far back as to the Christian scholar Origen in the early 3rd century, who declared that Jerusalem had been destroyed because the Jews had committed "the most abominable of crimes" in forming a "conspiracy against the Savior of the human race".
Martin Luther, Germany's most influential theologian, wrote an entire document called 'On the Jews and their Lies':
"First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it." . . . "Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues."

400 years after it was written, the Nazi's displayed Luther's 'On the Jews and Their Lies' during Nuremberg rallies, and the city of Nuremberg presented a first edition to Julius Streicher, editor of the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer, the newspaper describing it as the most radically anti-Semitic tract ever published.

Eugenicists, Hitler included, often express the idea that Darwinian evolution (the agentless process of Natural Selection) is incapable of producing anything but degeneration and thus an outside agent - an 'Intelligent Designer' if you like - is needed to create, fix, or maintain a level of superiority.
Eugenics is an anti-Darwinian or counter-Darwinian concept.

Hi Brian

Yes, we are all predictable! And this conversation is certainly evolving!

There is no reason to disassociate the Old Testament from the New, indeed it is the very ethic you refer to, 'an eye for an eye' which demonstrates the continuity.

If only it were an eye for an eye in our dealing with the poor of this world, at least then they might receive some fairness. Justice is the least we might expect to offer them. Why limit 'an eye for an eye' to the concept of violence? Anyway the context in Exodus and later in Matthew where the words are taken up by Jesus is in the context of the law courts, not a vigilante style personal vendetta so reminiscent of our sordid sectarian tit-for-tat killings. An eye for an eye, a burn for a burn clearly refers to the limits placed on any desire for retaliation while at the same time acting as a deterrent towards those who would do violence to other. An eye for an eye ends the cycle of retaliation and says this far and no further. The trouble with 'fair' is that it sounds like a good idea until somebody wants to 'get their own back'. Just imagine if the poor of this world could get their own back on us.

So, I agree, mercy is much preferable to justice, and Jesus takes the ancient words of Israel and says, to those of you who have been offended, do not seek revenge, do not seek compensation, it might be your right under law, it might be what's fair, but instead of taking, give again. "Turn the other cheek" - that is, greet your enemy again, as a friend, as you turned the first cheek to be greeted with a kiss, turn the other. In our terms it means to keep on offering the hand of friendship. Mercy delights to give people what they don't deserve, giving them instead what they need, gladly, no strings attached, no need of having to prove themselves, no need of having to merit what they might receive. Unwarranted, unmerited acceptance. It is what God is like, or so Jesus tells us. But how can we learn of mercy, without first understanding justice? We must know what is fair first, before we can be more than fair.

Unfortunately I agree with Helio, we are still savages, (or at least I am) albeit savages who have evolved silver tongues, and designer suits. However Christianity enables me to look my acts of injustice square in the face and consider mercy. An eye will not be demanded from me, and I need not demand one from others.

The real trouble is in getting beyond the rhetoric!

Peter:
You are deluding yourself. You say:

"An eye for an eye ends the cycle of retaliation and says this far and no further".

That's absolute rubbish. You are trying to justify the unjustifiable. It was more than far enough.
If you slaughter all the enemy before you, including women and children and animals, you can't go any further than that, for heaven's sake! Try reading Joshua, for example. 'Leave no one left to breathe' is not about drawing a line! How can an intelligent person excuse the Old Testament atrocities in such a transparently feeble way!

There is no continuity whatsoever. The Old Testament is a record of brutal slaughter. The Christian message of turning the other cheek and loving one another is a complete reversal of the OT morality.

Well, here I am defending Christian morality as a definite advance on the previous Middle Eastern ethic and arguing that we are better today than two or three thousand years ago, yet curiously it is I who have been accused on this blog of having a low opinion of humanity.

Shefftim:

Post 47 spot on. At least someone knows a bit of true history, not a distorted version.

Hi Brian

I think we ought to take this a step at a time.

Where did I say that war was good?

I was commenting on the specific use of a phrase, check out the meaning.

I was watching National Geographic's series Universe and they were talking about giant black holes at the center of galaxies, supernovae, pulsars, and quarks. What does the bible have to say about these? Are the evil or not?

Funny, Marcus, I was watching TV at the weekend too. It was the UKTV Food channel, they were showing an American programme and the presenter was baking fruit scones. Unfortunately they didn't broadcast the recipe so I went looking for it in the bible... it wasn't there... strange that, but maybe they were evil American scones.

Are we all agreed that Darwin's racism or lack thereof has *no* bearing on the truth of his theory? (I really like PJ Wodehouse, but his use of the "n" word makes me very uncomfortable. Should I burn all his books?)

A lot depends on our background theories. Darwin's ideas *seemed* to challenge man's unique status. So a high view of human beings leads to charges of "speciesism" from animal rights activists etc. Hitler applied Darwin's ideas to the "volk" and other races. And of course we've Galton and eugenics, etc.

On the other hand BB Warfield (when he took time off from slaughtering Canaanites because the Bible told him so) felt that Darwinism was compatible with a Biblical view of providence, and that in fact Theism could provide the "teleology" that Darwin's "mechanical" causes lacked. He perceived compatibility - as did Henry Drummond, Asa Gray, James McCosh, George Wright. Explanation by natural law is not incomaptible with Divine Supervision.

Evolution by Natural Selection can be adapted and/or reinterpreted by many worldviews. So it is not intrinsically racist or amoral. It's the overarching worldview, not the specific theory that needs to be evaluated.

G Veale

SheffTim.

Hitler's "God" is notoriously vague. And you won't find much coherence on this topic in the Table Talk or "Mein Kampf". I don't think that's controversial.
I'm told you won't find a lot of coherence on any topic in Hitler's thinking. He didn't value intellectual coherence. Nor did he value Science as an effort to find the truth about the physical world (theoretical physics was considered to be too Jewish at one stage.) Darwin was invoked in so far as he could justify Hitler's preconceptions and aid his mythmaking. He was no more a "Darwinist" than he was "Christian".

G Veale

#55. I think we'll agree that Hitler's thinking lacked coherence.

I haven't come across any instances of Hitler invoking Darwin or evolution in support of his "preconceptions and aid his myth-making".
There are examples of Hitler being utterly opposed to the idea that humans had evolved from apes. (See #47 above.)
Hitler seems to have been influenced in his thinking by the various pseudo-sciences that promoted the racial superiority of the 'Aryan race' and favoured 'racial purity' (See #47 above.) together with anti-Semitic writings, Christian included. He read large numbers of such tracts when young.

Hitler and the Nazis certainly persecuted atheists [Freethinkers], so it can't be claimed that he was an atheist:
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." - Adolf Hitler, speech in Berlin: 24/10/33

There are some books by historians that look at Nazism and their relationship with the Churches in Germany.
One is 'The Holy Reich, Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945' by Richard Steigmann-Gall. There's an interview here:
https://www.theturning.org/folder/nazis.html

There's a look at Hitler's Christianity here.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Inevitably the Nazis did their best to 'Nazify' religion (There were Christian leaders in Germany that opposed the Nazis, some gave their lives.), and it's possible that the Nazis had ultimate ambitions to re-draw German Christianity by jettisoning the Old Testament and portraying Hitler as a German messiah.

There's a long refutation of the charge that Darwin was racist (and also influenced Hitler) here.
https://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On related topics. Slavery and post civil-war racial segregation and oppression of blacks was strongest in the American south, in States where fundamentalist Christianity and creationist belief was strongest. The Ku Klux Klan was a Protestant organisation and its leaders evangelicals. This article is by a Christian.
https://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/1515.htm

In South Africa the introduction of apartheid was strongly supported by the conservative and creationist [Afrikaner] Dutch Reformed Church, which also claimed there was divine support for apartheid.

petermorrow, who's got time to eat. Everyone is out hunting for the elusive "God Particle", the Higgs Boson. It looked like Cern with its big new machine was a sure bet just a while back but things changed and now Fermilab in the US has at least a 50-50 chance of winning and being the first to find the god particale. But don't take my word for it, here it is straight from the horse's mouth;

https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7893689.stm

SheffTim

"I haven't come across any instances of Hitler invoking Darwin or evolution in support of his "preconceptions and aid his myth-making". There are examples of Hitler being utterly opposed to the idea that humans had evolved from apes."

Good point. There are broad similarities between *Ernst Haeckel's* ideas and Hitler's and the Nazi's. Both viewed human societies in terms of anatomy, physiology and metabolic activity. Both wanted to preserve the genetic purity of their race. Racial Hygeine flourished under the Nazis - and Nazism appealed to the Haeckel School, who wanted to intergrate biological and sociological laws.
But of course Haeckel had his own "take" on Darwin, and Haeckel's followers had their own take on Haeckel. And there were pro-Nazi biologists who were anti-Darwinian. So I was quite wrong to use Darwin. Walter Gratzer in "The Undergrowth of Science: Delusion, Self-Deception and Human Frailty" also warns that "it would be absurd to make Ernst Haeckel the father of National Socialism".
Hitler's "creationism" was not of the Christian Fundamentalist variety. It was based on "Occult" fantasies such as Bulwer-Lytton's "The Coming Race" and Hans Horbiger's "World-Ice" theory. How seriously Hitler took these ideas is open to dispute. Himmler, notoriously, was a whole-hearted proponent.
But sympathy with these pagan ideas, and eugenics, euthanasia etc. placed the Nazi leadership in opposition to Christian doctrine. Hitler believed Christianity would die of natural causes, although there is evidence that the Nazi party intended to eliminate the churches when they won the war.
However, there is abundant evidence that the Nazis were open to reinterpretations of Christianity (Jesus as a proto-Nazi).
My sources here are Martin Kitchen, Richard Evans and Richard Overy. I left Burleigh out, cos he annoys Brian.

GV

Peter Morrow - nice moves, beating all comers!

David Agnew - love your soup recipe!

William Crawley - does the caution about extending our contempoary sensititives to the past also extend to the default slamming of the bible here?

Brian - love your quote mining of the bible too!

great fun!

OT

OT

This thread was started because a Protestant fundamentalist (Mervyn Storey) said and is doing something very stupid(which seems to be a default position for fundamentalists). If he hadn't said what he said then we would not have to respond. Pretty simple!

You have done a fair bit of quote-mining yourself OT so please do not get so sanctimonious very others.

Kindest regards

DD

Re Hitler and the Nazis:

It's my understanding that the Nazis attempted to justify their acts and ideology with a basically self-contradictory mish-mash of selectively chosen fragments of Christianity, atheism, Nietzscheism, paganism, evolutionary theory, and various other ideologies, philosophies, dogmas, etc.

(And I'd normally heard that the Christian element was primarily Catholic).

I don't think you can really say much about their ideology, other than it was a) utterly evil, and b) utter BS.

Nor can you draw any useful conclusion about idea x from the fact that the Nazis may have used some part of x in their propoganda.

William and team ask;

"The more serious question we should ask is whether Darwin, judged by the standards of his day, would have been considered a racist -- or, quite the opposite, as a campaigner, in his own way, for the abolition of slavery...."


On reflection I think we have to applaud William for his even handedness here, because he previously invited a guest blogger into his shoes that made the same argument for the Apostle Paul and the bible;-

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/03/shibboleth_on_slavery.html

Lively debate!

OT

William and the team ask;

"Some of the language of the Bible would appear deeply objectionable by our contemporary lights."

Will is quite right to raise this(though some posters inevitably object). I too must applaud Will on his even-handedness(as always). Indeed Will made a post himself examining the link between the Bible and slavery/racism/segregation;-

https://bbc.kongjiang.org/www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/03/how_to_be_a_theological_racist.html

Will does note that Baptists do tend to be a racist, nasty bunch.

Will also highlights Bob Jones (cough) "university", which banned black students. Interestingly Ian Paisley, former leader of the Free Presbyterian cult, got his honorary (cough) "doctorate" accredited in Bob Jones (cough) "university". Moreover according to 'Paisley' by Maloney and Pollock, Mr Paisley and Mr Jones were bosom buddies, Paisley was forever flying over to preach at Bob's...institution. Bob Jones did not hide his Biblical based racism and segregationist views(the children of Ham and all that)but Mr Paisley was best mates with Bob! Mervyn Storey is a Free P, maybe before he starts throwing the first stone at others he should remove the moat from his own eye. However a fundamentalist Christian behaving in a hypocritical manner...never!;-/

Regards

DD

DD

Bad cough you have there, mind you will all that talk of BJ I'm surprised you didn't choke. Need a slap on the back, honey and lemon? ;-)

Just on a point of clarity, as I was the one who has objected most to certain comments on this thread. I have no problem in people critiquing or even giving Christianity and the bible a good old hammering, it's the 'knee-jerk' thing that's become a bit noticeable on here in recent months and it's the same old thing all the time.

The point William raises, and the one you refer to, about language and context is actually an important one and begins, whatever historical text we are talking about, with the question, 'what do the words mean', rather than what we think, or want, or simply assume them to mean.

DD

The link I quote explicity aimed to correct misconceptions which arose in the link that you quote.

ie "theological misunderstandings" as Will put it, that the bible in its entirety encourages slavery.

Wilberforce made the same point ie that nominal Christianity which justified slavery misuing the bible had nothing to do with genuine faith;-

See his "A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of This Country Contrasted With Real Christianity".


OT

I really think the biggest questions here are not about Darwin but about that soup, post 35.


The real question.... with eternal consequences for our personalities... is not;- did evolution happen?

The real question is - did God create me?

The athiests here, as ever, hide behind evolution as a means of propping of their worldview and beating Christians.

As we well know, Christians can operate with or without evolution but athiests have no choice and that is why their posts so often smack of desperate and personal attacks on others.

(There is an argument in there for the moral superiority of faith... for another time...)

So back to soup;-

1) How did the entire universe come from nothing and with no first cause?

2) How did life begin from mud puddles with no outside help?


OT

Hi PeterM

Good post as always! I do get a terrible (ahem)"cough" when talking about peeps like BJ.

I get what you mean, read and liked what you had to say about attitudes towards the third world(lots of food for thought)however(and unfortunately there is always is an however)this thread was started with, as you admit, a Christian saying something stupid. Would it not be better to encourage Christians not to say stupid things then peeps would not have to indulge in a bit of Bible-bashing?

Regards

Dd

(talking of Christians saying stupid things...)

OT!

Please direct your comments about the link I gave to Dr William Crawley. Dr Crawley simply pointed out the fact that millions of fundamentalist Bible-believers(ones like you) supported slavery and racism and quoted the Bible to do so. Dr Crawley also makes special mention of Baptists.

Ahhh I see that you are into the no true Scotsman fallacy.

Wilberforce was a great chap-it's a great shame that the TRUE Christians of the day did not listen to him.

Regards

DD

GV #58. I think we'll agree that Nazi ideology took from many strands of thought, often contradictory ones e.g. pagan and Christian. (But then, a case can be made that Hitler was insane; he demonstrated extreme megalomania, paranoia etc. A church portraying him as a messiah would probably have appealed to Hitler.)

It can be argued that Nietzsche had much greater influence on the Nazis than Haeckel; as did Houston Stewart Chamberlain who promoted in his book 'The Foundations Of The Nineteenth Century' [pub 1899] the idea of an Aryan Jesus (otherwise God was a Jew) and Teutonic supremacy. (The Nazis took the idea of an Aryan Jesus fairly seriously. See: 'The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany' by S. Heschel.) Joseph Arthur comte de Gobineau certainly was a major influence with his 19th century writings concluding that the White Aryan race was superior to all others.

It can't be denied that there have been strands of anti-Semitic thought flowing through Christianity for hundreds of years. e.g. The Crusaders were indiscriminate when it came to massacring both Muslims and Jews (Jews were thought of as 'killers of Christ'). There has also been much anti-Semitic persecution across Europe; e.g. in York, 150 Jews were massacred in 1190 for example.)
All this and more influenced the Nazis; theirs was a 'grab-bag' ideology. To blame Nazism on Darwin is just a desperate smear.

The accusation by fundamentalist Christians seems to be that Darwin's theory of evolution (or even just scientific thought, however defined) led to Nazi genocide; the implication presumably being that literal belief in the Bible leads to peace and co-existence. An argument that can be easily contested; how many lives have religious wars and persecutions cost, and what else has Christianity been used to help justify? Slavery, apartheid and so on.

The term "survival of the fittest" was popularised by British economist Herbert Spencer in his 1851 work Social Statics, which promoted free-market economics. From this came the metaphor 'Social Darwinism'.
Darwin himself was opposed to his theory being extended by analogy to sociology etc.
However it’s used, the term has nothing to do with Darwin or his theory of evolution.

OT

Post 66(yawn!)

I would direct you to the maxim I posted in m40 however I will try to deal with you for one more time.

"did evolution happen? "

Yes

"The real question is - did God create me?"

Well we know that your god didn't, because thanks to you and Mervyn Storey-you have both given us empirical claims that we can examine under the microscope for the existence of your god. Unfortunately your "evidence" is that much twaddle and that stupid that creationists do not use it!which when you actually stop to think about it is spectacularly stupid!

"The athiests here, as ever, hide behind evolution as a means of propping of their worldview and beating Christians."

The usual garbage(yawn). As you well know evolution is not a worldview but science and intelligent Christians get it-so please try and not worry about it. The problem is that that some Christians (from the vocal fundamentalist minority) are making concerted efforts to push the mindless useless drivel that is Biblical creationism onto our kids in the classroom. A lot of us care about this(from whatever creed) at the attempts to get this perversion of science foisted onto our kids, which is an abominable effort by fundamentalists to make our children as stupid. ignorant and dishonest as they are.

"As we well know, Christians can operate with or without evolution but athiests have no choice and that is why their posts so often smack of desperate and personal attacks on others."

I would direct you to my comment above. I would also add that Christians such as yourself and Mervyn use aspects of evolution/science every day however no-one uses Biblical creationism-it is really is that stupid! hence the reason why creationists use such desperate, dishonest and personal attacks.

"(There is an argument in there for the moral superiority of faith... for another time...)"

You are not a good example of the moral superiority of anything.

As for your canards-you have google, I and others have discussed it with you many times before, we have given you links to dedicated science sites so why not fill your boots...but then again you are an absolutist fundamentalist and as such not interested in any view which challenges your narrow world view.

Now...this thread was about a Christian saying something stupid and wanting to do something stupid-do you want to talk about that and not hijack the thread?

Kindest regards

DD

Well all this talk about Creationism may still play out in Europe or elsewhere but in America, a court in Dover Pennsylvania, having heard the evidence put forth by both sides, decided Creationism is religion, not science and therefore cannot be taught as an alternate theory in science classes in public schools. So in America, it's "case closed." :-)

#71 - I take it this is some kind of joke, you're seriously arguing that creationism has less following in the USA than Europe.

While I admire the court in PA for making the distinction between Science and Religion, I don't think the same is true across the rest of your country.

SheffTim,
I think we're in broad agreement. The Churches in Germany existed in a state of denial.
Richard Evans notes in "The Third Reich in Power" that Pastor Niemoller only realised the plight of the Jews once he was imprisoned alonside them.
More disturbing still are diary entries *of Jews* welcoming Hitler's accession to the Chancellorship. These Jews were believed that they would suffer to a limited extent under Hitler, but it would be to Gemany's greater good. They did not forsee the danger.
Anti-semitism predates Christianity - Antiochus Epiphanies can be seen as starting the trend (perhaps anti-Judaism would be more accurate in his case). The Romans viewed the Jewish people with increasing suspicion (the Jewish Revolts obviously didn't help). Gentile/ Jewish tensions proliferated in cities like Alexandria. The Hasmoneans conquered and forcibly converted many gentile towns and cities, which later looked to Rome for protection. Christians did assimilate to the anti-semitic climate.
Anti-semitic Christians could use texts from the *Jewish* scriptures (including the Torah) to justify this stance. Obviously this is not what the texts originally intended - they were written by Jews, for Jews. So this is a perfect illustration of the principle that texts need to be interpreted carefully in their original context (historical, canonical and literary). It is all to easy to make a text sound as if it endorsing a monstrous principle. That says precisely *nothing* about the original intention and meaning of the text.
On the subject of Darwin and genocides, any causal connection is bizarre. Haeckel was warned that his ideas would have disastrous consequences, but the Holocaust? I can't see that anyone could have predicted that. Could Hitler have predicted it in 1936? Even that seems questionable.
In any case, take Eugenics. The Eugenics movement was dependent on Mendelian genetics. Yet no one peruses Mendel's journals for links between the monk and the Fuhrer. No-one suggests that his ideas were dehumanising. So I think that it is facile to blame Darwin the man with some of the unintended consequences of his ideas.

G Veale

G Veale

I think we have agreement. On the Darwin / Nazi issue at least.

Before Antiochus Epiphanies was Ptolemy I Soter, before Ptolemy was Alexander and the Persians were before him. The Romans were just another in a long line of occupying forces of Judaea/Palestine/Levant.
I can see why the themes of deliverance, a messiah and a fierce belief in a promised land and of being a chosen people etc were so strong in Jewish belief.
History shows that invasion and occupation is often met with resistance; rebellion with suppression. Hundreds of thousands of Jews died in the uprisings and subsequent Roman suppressions. (The many rebellions, suppressions and massacres in other regions occupied by the Romans are much less well-known, if documented at all, for several obvious reasons.)

I see the Bible (OT and NT), Torah etc only as documents of - small - historical and anthropological interest. I genuinely find it difficult to understand why people attach so much significance to them.

Dover in Ulster? Heaven forbid.

1) As I'm tired of repeating, Creation Science *even if it was true* would not count as a Scientific theory. How can any scientific theory prove that man was created after animals, the sun after light, and the sun simultaneously with the galaxies? Even strong scientific evidence for a young earth could not establish this. It depends on a presupposed interpretation of one text.
The Royal Society refused to discuss matters of politics, rhetoric, and religion. Boyle and Newton's religious views believed that Science and Theology both told the truth about the world, but they did not reveal how the Bible spoke to them when discussing business at the Royal Society. Hobbes was refused membership, in part because he discussed Biblical Interpretation in Leviathan. Theology may motivate us to pursue science, and it may even ground our faith in our rational faculties. But the interpretation of Religious texts was kept strictly out of the Societies affairs. For good reason - the correct interpretation of Genesis 1 is, primarily, a literary and historical question. It is not, primarily, a Scientific question.

2) Cardinal Bellarmine (who ordered Galileo to stop advancing Heliocentrism) wrote in his letter to Foscarini - "say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is at the center of the world and the earth in the third heaven, and that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun, then one would have to proceed with great care in explaining the Scriptures that appear contrary, and say rather that we do not understand them than what is demonstrated [that is by astronomical observation and mathematics] is false. But I will not believe that there is such a demonstration, until it is shown to me." Bellarmine, a strong biblical literalist, admitted that in principle a rational demonstration would lead him to reconsider his interpretation of Scripture.
In fact, on thos point he agrees with Galileo's letter to Castelli - "it was necessary, however in Holy Scripture, in order to accomodate itself to the understanding of the majority, to say many things which apparently differ from the precise meaning...As therefore the Bible, although dictated by the Holy Spirit, admits, from the reasons given above, in many passages of an interpretation other than the literal one; and as, moreover, we cannot maintain with certainty that all interpreters are inspired by God, I think it would be the part of wisdom not to allow any one to apply passages of Scripture in such a way as to force them to support, as true, conclusions concerning nature the contrary of which may afterwards be revealed by the evidence of our senses or by necessary demonstration."
Why did Bellarmine and Galileo diagree? Galileo thought he had a rational demonstration for heliocentrism, Bellarmine thought that he hadn't. (Bellarmine believed (a) mathematics and observation was a less certain path to truth that deduction and (b) even on Galileo's own methodology, key evidence was missing.
The point for Young Earthers that even the opponents of the new "Scientific Method" agreed that a rational demonstration should lead us to reconsider scripture.

3) As proof of Galileo's contention that the interpretation of texts is too flexible to rule on scientific theories, consider that even the early rabbinic sources are not agreed on the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3.

4) So any court should dismiss "Answers in Genesis" Creationism as Science *before any scientific evidence is produced*. Does "Intelligent Design" help? I can't see how - no clear definition exists for ID. Simon Conway Morris criticises ID in "Life's Solution". Yet Elliott Sober, perhaps ID's leading critic, in his review of "Life's Solution" feels that Morris is rejecting one version of ID simply to advance his own ID theory "Biological Fine Tuning".
Both Sober and the atheistic philospher Bradley Monton would consider "Cosmological Fine-Tuning" arguments to be a species of ID. In fact in much of the philosophical literature this is the case. Denis Alexander is probably the UK's leading Christian critic of ID. Yet he accepts and promotes Conway-Morris's design argument. Alexander says that John Lennox is the UK's leading ID proponent. Yet Lennox does not consider himself to be an ID proponent.
What is clear is that ID is not always indentified with Dembski, Behe and the Discovery Institute. The term no longer seems to have any practical use at all.

All in all I cannot see how Mr Storey has anything approximating a case.

One other reason for not wanting a Dover here - the judge's decision didn't settle the argument. The atheist Bradley Monton wrote an interesting review, which got him into all kinds of controversy. Yet his case seems trivially true.

https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00002592/01/Methodological_Naturalism_Dover_3.doc

Gveale, I think you gloss over the Dover trial a bit too easily. The proponents of ID were utterly embarrassed. Their intellectual dishonesty was exposed by a careful forensic deconstruction of their ID textbook showing how they had simply inserted the words Intelligent design wherever creationism had appeared before....and then pretended that they had come up with a new "scientific" theory.Two of their key witnesses perjured themselves in court, a bit of a drawback for somebody who claims to be a Christian.
Their examples of irreducible complexity were demolished stone by stone by biologists like Ken Miller and five of the iD expert witnesses, depite being listed beforehand never appeared in court.
To use a military analogy it was their Stalingrad.

#75/76. Another Dover?

I very much doubt that any attempt at a court case would even get around to discussing the evolution/creationist issue.

It would be all about the museum's independence, it's curators' right to their own internal decision making processes as laid down in its charter/constitution etc, etc.
There's been similar fusses made over past art exhibitions etc held in Britain.
The most Story could realistically do would be to attempt to stop any funding the museum receives from the assembly; and that would have to be done via the assembly.

Storey's a politician, here's he's playing to his constituents.

N Dee

(i)The point is that not *every* type of ID was on trial at Dover - just the Johnson/Dembski/Behe project.

(ii) ID may or may not cover Fine-Tuning arguments, Keith Ward and Simon Conway Morris' design-style arguments etc. It's not clear what the term refers to.

(iii) The Judge's ruling is based on a poor definition of Science - but I think the blame is being placed on the Defence team, who failed to challenge the ACLU's expert witnesses on key points (Pennock especially).

G Veale

N Dee

On the expert witnesses - it does seem that there was something of a panic at the Discovery Institute when they talked to the Dover School Board and their lawyers.
It is certainly worth reading Bradley Monton's review of the trial.

Who perjured themselves?

GV

Hello UeberPERP,

"Who perjured themselves? "

According to the ruling, several of the IDiots:

"Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied
the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence
about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that
these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several
occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points."

I'll try to find some time to catch up more on the Science of God thread too, as I see more ERPing there.

Hi Gveale, the two people who lied under oath were Bill Buckingham and Alan Bonsell, the two prime movers in getting creationism/ID onto the school curriculum.
For a brilliant and rounded account of the trial read Laurie Lebo,the devil in Dover.

PK/ND
I didn't ERP here. Just asked a question. I thought Minnich or Behe had been accused of perjury by someone. And for the record, I'm not bowled over by Behe's arguments.

I think Judge Jone's ruling on what does or doesn't count as science is open to question. The rest of the ruling didn't interest me, up until now.

The School Board's behaviour, and the approach of the "Thomas More" lawyers drew criticism from *the Discovery Centre* before the trial, never mind the Judge Jones. Whch makes me ask, what was going on in the background?
So I'll check out Lebo, ND. Thanks for the recommendation.

GV

Hello Graham,

I didn't think you were ERPing, I guess it might be better to restrict the Royal or Pretender titles to the God and science thread.

You mentioned the lawyers bit. The Thomas More ('Moore' if I remember correctly?) people insisted they handle everything. The thing that made Dembski bail out was that he couldn't bring his own layer. So it seems turf bickering and power play may have been an important factor. If you're interested in the details of it, you might want to look at the National Center for Science Education website. Dover was their arguably finest hour and they have extensive online resources about the case.

Here is another very interesting survey on how mainstream Darwinism is around the world;-

https://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg&cap=A+chart+showing+public+acceptance+of+evolution+in+34+countries.+The+United+States+ranked+near+the+bottom%2C+beat+only+by+Turkey.+Credit%3A+Science

Oh dear OT!

At it again I see! how many times have you pulled this poll?

It does indeed show that countries with high amounts of fundies have lower accepatance of evolution-so what we know that fundies are stupid, nothing new there. The poll also shows that the countries with a lower acceptance of evolution have higher crime rates-which of course puts paid to a lie that creationists such as yourself give out eg., that evolution leads to all sorts of nastiness. Shooting yourself in the foot again!