Charles Darwin the original anti-racist?

[flamingjimmy 10]

It is interesting that you espouse just the dogma that is so often used to defend the idea of evolution. I do believe in evolution but in reality the capacity of scientist to challenge ideas is entirely dependent on their peers who have a vested interest. I know of scientists who have been urged by their colleagues not to engage in or publish work that might challenge concepts on the evolution of life because of the way in which it might be challenged.

Tell them to go to America, they could get themselves $millions in research grants from creationists!

[quisquose 10]

I have to say that I thought Andrew Marrs' 3 part series on Darwin was excellent. He showed a knowledge and passion for his subject that I found very refreshing.

[carosio 186]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say, Mel.

 

Yes Darwin did spread the correct understanding that we are all of one species, but he equally agreed with the existence of distinct races within the species.

 

His works contain frequent references to 'savages'.

Then, the word "savage" meant someone who was uneducated and not cultured in the ways of the European.

[cgksheff 44]

Then, the word "savage" meant someone who was uneducated and not cultured in the ways of the European.

 

So what. It also meant simple hunter-gathers amongst others.

 

Read the rest of his works, in particular The Descent of Man, and you may realise what he meant.

 

What are you trying to defend?

 

It was a different age with different values and different words were used, but Darwin clearly believed in different races and their varying physical and social characteristics.

[Urien 10]

Well said melthebell, Victorian science regarding 'inferior' ethnic groupings is a load of old racist nonsense. Same as their view that criminals had particular facial types.

 

I'm not sure that the "African Book of Inventions" quite stands up to the European book and these people hadn't even invented the wheel - it must say something.

 

I would have thought that Darwin's theory of evolution proved conclusively that human beings had evolved at different rates just has every other species has done - it would be foolish to think otherwise. Only religions teach us that we are all equal - at certain hideous political doctrines.

Edited March 21, 2009 by Urien

[quisquose 10]

Only religions teach us that we are all equal

 

Really? My mum taught me that.

 

Last time I read a religious book, I got more of the opposite to be honest.

[carosio 186]

So what. It also meant simple hunter-gathers amongst others.

 

Read the rest of his works, in particular The Descent of Man, and you may realise what he meant.

 

What are you trying to defend?

 

It was a different age with different values and different words were used, but Darwin clearly believed in different races and their varying physical and social characteristics.

 

I suppose I was defending exactly what you have stated in your last paragraph. Your question seems to imply some disagreement with my comment, perhaps you might clarify?

[Wildcat 10]

I'm not sure that the "African Book of Inventions" quite stands up to the European book and these people hadn't even invented the wheel - it must say something.

 

I would have thought that Darwin's theory of evolution proved conclusively that human beings had evolved at different rates just has every other species has done - it would be foolish to think otherwise. Only religions teach us that we are all equal - at certain hideous political doctrines.

 

Our earliest chariots were a millenia after the massive chariot battle at Kadesh.

 

Are you claiming we invented the wheel and then secretly exported it to the middle east and Africa

[flamingjimmy 10]

I'm not sure that the "African Book of Inventions" quite stands up to the European book and these people hadn't even invented the wheel - it must say something.

 

I would have thought that Darwin's theory of evolution proved conclusively that human beings had evolved at different rates just has every other species has done - it would be foolish to think otherwise.

Only religions teach us that we are all equal - at certain hideous political doctrines.

 

In fact it proves nothing of the sort. Richard Dawkins explains this better than I do:

 

"In the 19th century, after Darwin, evolutionists often regarded African people as intermediate between apes and Europeans, on the upward path to white supremacy. This is not only factually wrong. It violates a fundamental principle of evolution. Two cousins are always equally related to any outgroup via a shared ancestor... all humans are exactly equally close cousins to all apes."

 

The only evolved differences between the different racial groups are things like the amount of melanin in the skin and lactose tolerance, etc. Nothing that really matters (unless you've got no shade at all and only milk to drink:hihi:)

 

Only religions teach us that we are all equal - at certain hideous political doctrines.

Some religions, some of the time. And no, it's certainly not exclusive to religion, my dad taught me that we're all equal, and he's not religious.

[Funky_Gibbon 42]

In the scientific community you are regarded as a heretic of questioning Darwin because it is so important for so many people to use Darwin's ideas for their own ends and as a defence from religious ideals etc.

 

The scientific community happily point out the places where Darwin was wrong as this is part of the scientific method. The only people they treat like heretics are those people who try to peddle easily debunked nonsense under the guise of science.