Darwin a Racist and a Sexist ?

Origins: The Extinction of Evolution

YouTube&ab_channel=CornerstoneTelevisionNetwork

I do not endorse everything mentioned in the program's advertisements

@sonship said
Origins: The Extinction of Evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqHLt7d_wTE&ab_channel=CornerstoneTelevisionNetwork

I do not endorse everything mentioned in the program's advertisements

Maybe he was.

A lot of people were racists and sexists back then.

A lot of people today are also racists and sexists, though there is generally more social backlash for being openly so.

@BigDogg

Religious and secular people can both be harmful. All have sinned.

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23)

Most of the threads I start have a positive purpose.
I don't like to make many threads which seem only to convey some negative thing about people.

This one was an exception. I admit that.

Is this thread meant as a dig at evolution?

@sonship said
Most of the threads I start have a positive purpose.
I don't like to make many threads which seem only to convey some negative thing about people.

Every single thread you start about your religion is underpinned by your odious and non-sensical torturer God ideology and implicit assertions about how human beings who do not share your particular set of superstitious beliefs deserve to be tortured for eternity. That's conveying "some negative thing" about all those people, to my way of thinking. That's not having a positive purpose. Do you think it is?

@sonship said
Origins: The Extinction of Evolution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqHLt7d_wTE&ab_channel=CornerstoneTelevisionNetwork

I do not endorse everything mentioned in the program's advertisements

Your going to addle your brain if you watch too many videos wherein people purport to use “scientific evidence to prove the truth of creation”.
Do you know any Christian thinkers of Darwin’s era that weren’t racist and sexist. Darwin’s truth is undeniably based in reality and empirical evidence whereas you choose to rely 100% on here say and faith.

@kevcvs57 said
Your going to addle your brain if you watch too many videos wherein people purport to use “scientific evidence to prove the truth of creation”.
Do you know any Christian thinkers of Darwin’s era that weren’t racist and sexist. Darwin’s truth is undeniably based in reality and empirical evidence whereas you choose to rely 100% on here say and faith.

So there is empirical evidence of "Favored Races" ?

The full title of his book -

"The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

@sonship said
So there is empirical evidence of "Favored Races" ?

The full title of his book -

"The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

Only a very superficial analysis of that title would result in the book being described a racist tome.
Would you say a white sinned red head is properly adapted for life in the Serengeti. Why do you think people found in the northern climes are lighter skinned than those in the southern or equatorial climes. Evolution is precisely about tracking adaptation in response to environmental factors in the widest sense of the phrase.
“Favoured races” is a very unfortunate phrase when viewed today because we assume he is referring to the human species but he clearly wasn’t focused on his own species at all, unless you think the variety of finches and the neck length of giant tortoises on the Galápagos Islands were encoded racism. There is scientific evidence for phenotypic variations within our species in response to environmental factors but none of them support the supremacy of any particular superficial variation.

I’ve answered honestly now you can return the favour by synopsising the scientific evidence for the truth of creation.

@sonship said
@BigDogg

Religious and secular people can both be harmful. All have sinned.

"All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Rom. 3:23)

Most of the threads I start have a positive purpose.
I don't like to make many threads which seem only to convey some negative thing about people.

This one was an exception. I admit that.

It's a pretty low thread. If you think it somehow weakens the theory of evolution you are sadly mistaken. If anything it seems like a desperate slur from a Christian who is incapable of dealing with the overwhelming evidence he presented.

What next, an attack on Karl Marx because of his bushy eyebrows?



By todays standards, how many of the biblical figures do you think would be considered racist or sexist?

@kevcvs57

Apparently you did not hear the quotations from Darwin's own pen
in the video. Its only 26.30 minutes.

2:30 " I believe, in this extreme part of South America, man exists in a lower state than any other part of the world."

Ie. These people are the least evolved of all human beings.

3:05 "While going along one day on shore of Wallaston Island, we pulled along side of a canoe . . . These were the most abject and miserable creatures I anywhere beheld."

Ie. Abject and miserable because they were so much less "evolved" ?
He could not call them humans but only "creatures" ? And they were only "miserable creatures" as that.

3:13 "Their skill in some respects may be compared to the instincts of animals; for it is not improved by experience; the canoe, their most ingenious work, poor as it is, has remained the same . . . for the last two hundred and fifty years."

So we assume humans being are less evolved "miserable creatures" as they are are proved so by seemingly less sophisticated tools, like a canoe compared to a say a steam powered ship ? Darwin suggests technology is an indication of level of evolution. It is like a beaver building a dam in the same manner for two hundred years only by instinct and not by learning how to improve upon its water flow efficiency.

Now let's go on to low evolution expressing "admiration" for white skin:

4:03 "One of our arms being barred, they expressed the liveliest surprise and admiration for its whiteness, just in the same way in which I have seen the ourangoutangs do at the Zoological Gardens."

Ie. Lower evolved creatures with non-white skin admire white skinned people as ourangoutang also does in the zoos. Isn't this great arrogance? These humans are like the apes in the zoo in admiration of his white skin.

4:31 "It may also naturally be inquired whether man, has given rise to varieties of sub-races, differing but slightly from each other, or to races differing so much that they must be classified as doubtful species."

This is loaded question which he goes on to answer.

4:48 " Do the races of species of men, whatever term may be applied, encroach on and replace each other, so that some finally become extinct? We shall see that all these questions . . . must be answered in the affirmative."

No wonder Eugenics and Nazism looked to Darwin's "science" for support of their insidious policies. Darwin is teaching that there are some humans who are more evolved than others. Add Survival of the Fittest and genocide is justified. The rest is history.

This is only 5 minutes into the 26 minute video. What stops you from watching it yourself?

Origins: The Extinction of Evolution

YouTube&ab_channel=CornerstoneTelevisionNetwork

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

It's a pretty low thread. If you think it somehow weakens the theory of evolution you are sadly mistaken.

I think it exposes the major underlying conception that was driving Darwin to
propose the theory.

For example: There are "sub-species" of human beings because they are less evolved.
We must not be naïve that supposedly "objective" scientists do have agendas and worldviews they PREFER would be true. In Darwin's case racial superiority was only a part of the natural world.

If anything it seems like a desperate slur from a Christian who is incapable of dealing with the overwhelming evidence he presented.

I think if macro evolution is true it is MIRACULOUS.
And producing of different kinds of dogs which is observed and repeatable
doesn't empirically extrapolate out that all living things are descendent from a so-called common "simple" single celled life.

I would consider it MIRACULOUS that with no plan, no purpose, no goal, descent with modification could even produce the thousands of activities in just ONE living cell. Darwin knew nothing about microbiology. He can be excused for that. But going into the 21rst century and what we see as the incredible purpose laden operation going on by the thousands in a living cell, another paradigm needs to be explored.

What next, an attack on Karl Marx because of his bushy eyebrows?

I don't mind bushy eyebrows. Come up with another comparison maybe.

By todays standards, how many of the biblical figures do you think would be considered racist or sexist?

That is a fair question. Whoever I might nominate it wouldn't be God Himself.
Since we are told He intended to make all men in His image and according to His likeness they derive all of them dignity from their Creator.

Now Moses wrote five books of the Bible. And at first superficial glance one might assume he considered the race of Israelites to be inherently better than everyone else. Right?

Well, it is clear that Moses said that it was NOT because the Israelites were better that God was giving them the land of Canaan. But it was because of the extreme wickedness of the inhabitants of the land.

"Do not say in your heart when Jehovah your God drives them out from before you, Because of my righteousness, Jehovah has brought me in to possess this land. Rather, it is because of the wickedness of these nations that Jehovah is about to dispossess them from before you.

It is not because of your righteousness nor because of the uprightness of your heart that you are entering in to possess their land, but Jehovah your God is about to dispossess them from before you because of the wickedness of these nations and so that Jehovah may establish the word that He swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." (Deuteronomy 9:4,5)

And a cursory reading of the prophets shows that God cut no slack in similarly punishing the Israelites for the very same sins (and worse). It is hard to view the Hebrew Bible as superior race propaganda. Rather some Jews have said about being "the chosen race" - " I wish God would pick on somebody else."

Now since "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" I could probably show some racism expressed here or there in some bible figure. I didn't like the way David hated the lame which I thought was a blemish on his character. (2 Sam 2:5) Maybe that is an arguable case of some kind of bigotry.

Given that evolution does not espouse Darwin's racist ideas, is there any use for this thread?

Your God is a sexist who commands women be stoned if they're not virgins when they're married, and commands homosexuals be murdered. Do you have any right to criticize Darwin based on morals?

Given that creationism is a scientific joke, do you have any right to criticize evolution?

@vivify

Given that evolution does not espouse Darwin's racist ideas, is there any use for this thread?

I think Darwin's presentation of the theory had racism as either an underlying motive or very useful by-product. The quotations from him above would suggest that.

All forms of so-called "Neo-Darwinism" might not be susceptible to that suspicion. The social sciences relatively quickly discarded of "Social Darwinism" seeing the harmful bigotry inherent in it.

Your God is a sexist who commands women be stoned if they're not virgins when they're married, and commands homosexuals be murdered. Do you have any right to criticize Darwin based on morals?

I'll accept that challenge in a fair minded manner imo.

The harshest laws against immorality seemed to be tied to the people who should have known the most definitely that there was God. The strongest laws of Moses were tailored to those who had WITNESSED the deliverance from Egypt in a spectacularly miraculous manner testifying God's existence.

In other words, that generation had no excuse. They knew what God was like and should be obeyed. The miraculous Exodus was fresh in the minds of at least two or three generations. "God is not to be played around with. If He says no adultery it is to be taken with great seriousness."

Having said that, God requested the seventy elders as co-judges to accompany Moses in difficult moral cases. In other words, there is a divine awareness that some matters are not so cut and dry. They are difficult to adjudicate. So with the harshest laws there were the many judges to assist in deciding fine cases.

"So Jehovah said to Moses, Gather to Me seventy, each one from the elders of Israel whom you know are the elders of the people and their officers, and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, and have them stand there with you.

Then I will come down and talk with you there, and I will take of the Spirit who is upon you and will put Him upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, so that you do not bear it alone." (Numbers 11:17)

See also Exodus 18:17-23. Jethro, a godly priest of Midian, Moses' father-in-law discusses this with Moses.

"When they have a dispute, the matter comes to me [Moses]; and I judge between a man and his neighbor, and I make known the statutes of God and His laws. And Moses' father-in-law said to him, The thing that you are doing is not good. You will surely wear yourself out, both you and this people who are with you, for the thing is too heavy for you; you cannot do it by yourself.

Listen now to my voice: I will give you counsel, and God be with you. You stand for the people before God, and you bring the matters to God. And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and make known to them the way in which they should walk and the work that they should do.

You also should look for able men among all the people who fear God, men of truth, who hate unjust gain; and place them over them,
as leaders of thousands,
leaders of hundreds,
leaders of fifties,
and leaders of tens.

And let them judge the people at all times; and let them bring every great matter to you, but every small matter let them judge themselves. So it will be easier for you, and they will bear the burden with you. . . . and they judged the people at all times; the hard cases they brought to Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves." (See Exodus 18:18-27)

Difficult and easy cases indicates that PARTICULARS of details was taken into account in adherence to the Law.

Also the system of sacrifices to atone for sins has to be considered:
the consecration offering,
the sin offering,
the peace offering,
the meal offering,
the heave offerng,
the wave offering,
the trespass offering,
the priests tended to many atoning and expiatory sacrifices available to sinning Israelites.

Remember Rehab the harlot from the cursed city of Jericho became a great grandmother of David and therefore Jesus. Also the law forbade a Moabite to enter into the congregation of Yahweh for up to the tenth generation according to the Law. Yet Ruth the Moabite also partook of God's grace and became a great grandmother of David and therefore of Jesus also.

Of course the New Testament has NO such instructions on stoning's and execution as the theocratic Israel just coming of Egypt had. Here in the NT age Christ is the reality and the fulfilment of all the offerings for whatEVER sins committed. So while the morality is still high, the justification and grace for forgivness is set higher in the redemption of God's Son for everyone who believes.

@sonship

Paul writes:

'As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.'

Sexist?

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

Paul writes:

'As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.'

Sexist?

I think that what Paul was saying was he did not want women to define with authority major doctrines of the church.

Now some other windows into Paul's attitude I have to consider.

Social stratification and oppression of women were OUT and had no place the church life:

"For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek,
there cannot me slave or free man,
there cannot be male and female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:27,28)

The Jew cannot oppress the Greek in the church or you cannot have the church.
The free man cannot oppress the slave in the church or you CANNOT have the
church.

The male cannot oppress the female in the church or you just cannot have the church. You are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now in Romans 16 Paul lists his fellow servants to be held in high esteem.
The FIRST recommended in his list is a woman.

"I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a deaconess of he church which is in Cenchrea, That you RECEIVE HER IN THE LORD in a manner worthy of the saints and ASSIST HER IN WHATEVER MATTER she may have need of you; for she herself has also been the patroness of many, of myself as well." (Rom. 16:1)

Ie. While I want wives to be submissive to their husbands help this woman in WHATEVER she says she needs because many of us including myself and the whole church in that city owe her a lot.

Paul wants the wives submissive to the husbands but mentions the name of the WIFE first in the apostolic team of of Prisca and Aquilla. He must have had some good reason to place the wife's name before her husband.

Greet Prisca and Aquilla, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. (v.3,4)

Ie. Hey, all the churches of the Gentile world, don't forget the team of WIFE Prisca and her husband Acquilla. We all owe a lot to for risking their lives for this cause.

Maybe she was a prayer warrior and could touch the throne of God with her petitions and supplications. Whatever the case in some way she was leading the way.

Then Paul mentions a woman who was biologically unrelated to him. But he highly considered her as his mother.

"Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord and his mother as well as mine." (v.16)

He highlights the faithful woman disciple Mary for her labors.
"Greet Mary, one who has labored much for you."

Paul mentions two who had a reputation among the apostles, one of which is agreed was a female. He considered her his senior.

"Greet Andronicus and JUNIA, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." (v.7)

Paul speaks of women PROPHESYING. So he expected them to utter words of encouragement filled with God's presence and blessing. That is not strictly predicting but speaking for God.

"But every woman praying or prophesying with her head uncovered disgraces her head; . . . " (11:4)

He expected them to speak in praying and prophesying. The head covering was an item of clothing. I will not speak to that now in this reply.

Luke the traveling companion of Paul tells us of four unmarried daughters who were prophetesses.

"And on the next day we [including him and Paul] went forth and came to Caesarea; and entering into the house of Philip the evangelist, . . . Now this man had four virgin daughters who prophesied. " (Acts 21:8,9)

There is no hint that Paul forbade them from exercising their gift to prophesy.

And submission is something Paul said ALL the believers should have for one another.

"Giving thanks at all times for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to our God and Father, Being subject to one another in the fear of Christ." (Eph. 5:21)

His next sentence is about wives being subject to their own husbands. Note, their OWN husbands. "Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord." (v.22)

Husbands are to be willing to lay down their lives for their wives in reflection of how Christ laid down His life for the church.

"Husbands, love your wives even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her that He might sanctify her . . . " (v25)

For length's sake I stop here.