Cancel Darwin? No, But Do Recognize How Evolution Boosted Racism

Cancel Darwin? No, But Do Recognize How Evolution Boosted Racism | Evolution News

Cancel culture is becoming surreal. Or should I say even more surreal? “Exotic birds” are now judged to be offensive. What next?

evolutionnews.org

Editor’s note: Last week, Scientific American viciously smeared all skeptics of Darwinian theory with an article titled, “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy,” by Allison Hopper. As promised, we are presenting some of our extensive past coverage of the tight links between racism and evolution. This article was originally published on September 25, 2020.

Cancel culture is becoming surreal. Or should I say even more surreal? Plans are afoot, as I suppose was inevitable, to cancel Charles Darwin, whose famed statue adorns the Natural History Museum in London, and even to throw T. H. Huxley under the bus for good measure. “Exotic birds” are now judged to be offensive. What next? Kurt Zindulka reports:

In response to the iconoclastic Black Lives Matter movement, the Natural History Museum has launched a review into supposedly “offensive” and “problematic” collections, including exotic birds collected by English naturalist Charles Darwin.
The review will audit rooms, statues, and items that the executive board deems offensive for possible renaming or removal, to show how “science, racism, and colonial power were inherently entwined”.
Documents revealed to The Telegraph from the review state that “in light of Black Lives Matter and the recent anti-racist demonstrations around the world”, the Natural History Museum will review “whether any statues (or collections) or could potentially cause offence”.
The review will reportedly include specimens collected by Charles Darwin on the Galapagos Islands, which were instrumental in helping the naturalist form his Theory of Evolution. A curator of the museum listed the pieces as an example of Britain’s many “colonialist scientific expeditions”….
The review team argued that exotic birds collected by Darwin and Caption Robert Fitzroy on the islands served to “enable greater British control” throughout South America.
A statue honouring Thomas Henry Huxley — who promoted Darwin’s theory of evolution to such an extent that he is known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ — has been targeted for removal as well due to his controversial views on race.

Let me be clear. It’s the longstanding position of the Center for Science & Culture that, for all the problems with evolutionary theory, scientific and otherwise, and they are manifold, the right way forward is to teach and educate more about Darwinian evolution not less. That is the polar opposite of cancel culture.

“Entwined” with Racism​

That having been said, Darwin’s science is indeed “entwined” with racism, and gave it a major boost in the 19th and 20th centuries, and on into our own 21st century. Our historian colleague Richard Weikart discusses just that fact on a new episode of ID the Future, hosted by science historian Michael Keas:

The evil of racism was nothing new when Darwin and his evolutionary theory came on the scene, but according to Weikart, racist thinking, increased “by orders of magnitude” under the influence of Darwinism and evolutionary thinking, and became mainstream science. The idea of a Malthusian “struggle for existence” meant there must be winners and losers in the fight for population survival, and Darwin believed that the best, and inevitable, outcome would be that the supposedly superior European races would overcome the supposedly inferior black Africans.

Canceling history is never the solution. Nor is canceling science, however burdened with weaknesses.

 

[Pruto]

Is this woke whites calling blacks monkeys again?

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

Cancel Darwin? Yes.

 

[No Exit]

Is this woke whites calling blacks monkeys again?

Trust the science, bro.

 

[Underperforming]

In the long run, who will take down science the most? The christcucks? Or the Neo marxists?

 

[Toolbox]

The complete anti science viewpoint of the supposed lovers of it continues to become more obvious. As if attempting to rewrite human biology wasn't already enough.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

They are trying to erase the presence of white people and there accomplishments in there liberal cultural revolution

In the long run, who will take down science the most? The christcucks? Or the Neo marxists?

The Christcucks had there shot 20 years ago, the Neo marxist of today are far more effective than the religious ever were back in the day.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Center for Science and Culture tries it: Being reasonable.

 

[From The Uncanny Valley]

Time for the hilarity of woke creationism

 

[Ita Mori]

Evolution Boosted Racism​

Natural selection is racist?
Are they admitting niggers and generally dark skin tones are incapable of making a prosperous society and are obsolete genetic vermin?

Last week, Scientific American viciously smeared all skeptics of Darwinian theory with an article titled, “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy,”

Is this how everything is going to be now; anytime you diagree with someone, it has to include cracker bashing?

Also, "viciously smeared".
They attacked anti-darwinists no more than they attacked flat earthers.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

In the long run, who will take down science the most? The christcucks? Or the Neo marxists?

Indigenous folk religion

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

They are trying to erase the presence of white people and there accomplishments in there liberal cultural revolution


The Christcucks had there shot 20 years ago, the Neo marxist of today are far more effective than the religious ever were back in the day.

Because scientists are deathly afraid of racism, even though natural selection proves ecological diversity will eventually produce different species. Assuming superiority and inferiority is a value judgement that's contextual at best, but genetic drift does prove physical differences will diverge the more the races segregate.

That's one of the tells biologists in general are not entirely truthful when they teach anything evolutionarily related--like Corona chan--and still argue that races don't exist.

 

[eDove]

I mean, it's true. It's always been funny to me that self-annointed Liberals champion Evolutionary ideology, yet it has the most racist-as-fuck roots. Pretty much all of its founders deemed nigs an inferior species.

It's kind of like with Margaret Sanger and eugenics. Everyone involved today just says: "yeah, but we don't believe in that anymore!" But you're adhering to the practices and ideologies of people who you'd demand the cancellation of today.

In short, don't bitch about H.P. Lovecraft being an evil racist and then excuse Darwin for some reason.

 

[Agent Abe Caprine]

Time for the hilarity of woke creationism

Dinosaurs never existed because such height privilege isn't possible.

 

[StraightShooter2]

Evolution is basically a religion for incels. And the people most morbidly obsessed with it (e.x. such as fat fedora neckbeard atheists who are too stupid to understand it doesn't have anything to do with atheism) are generally significantly less likely to reproduce consensually than the general population. The racism is just icing on the cake, and it doesn't matter whether some epistemologically ignorant person states that it's "true" or not, since there's no reason to believe it.

I don't see how anyone who has even so much as read a book written above the 6th grade level could believe any of the nonsense and superstitions that are peddled to the ignorant masses under trendy terms like "evolution" or "science" - stupidity and illiteracy is pretty much a perquisite for believing any of that bullshit.

 

[CAPTAIN HAPPY]

Reminderinoed me of a time when Richard Dawkins was on some radio show with a priest and he told the priest that most Christians don't read the Bible and don't know the gospel, which is true and the priest admitted it. Then the priets pulled a good one and said that he heard that Dawkins said that his favorite book was Darwin's "On the Origin of Species etc. etc." and when Dawkins said that it was true, the priest asked him to recite the full name of the book, which is, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" From lack of memory or realizing that the priest had him by the balls, Dawkins mumbled something like, "Eh, Origins of the Species by... Oh God."
Made me laugh. The priest laughed too.

 

[Penis Drager]

the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

It should be understood that "race" had a much broader meaning than it does today. In fact, it often referred to categories of wine. The modern sense of the term was around during Darwin's time, but the broader sense (basically just referring to common ancestry of anything) was as well.

race | Etymology, origin and meaning of race by etymonline

RACE Meaning: "a narrative, an account;" c. 1300, "an act of swift running, a hurried attack," also "a course of life… See definitions of race.

www.etymonline.com

Edits: fixed a few dumb errors.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

Evolution is basically a religion for incels. And the people most morbidly obsessed with it (e.x. such as fat fedora neckbeard atheists who are too stupid to understand it doesn't have anything to do with atheism) are generally significantly less likely to reproduce consensually than the general population. The racism is just icing on the cake, and it doesn't matter whether some epistemologically ignorant person states that it's "true" or not, since there's no reason to believe it.

I don't see how anyone who has even so much as read a book written above the 6th grade level could believe any of the nonsense and superstitions that are peddled to the ignorant masses under trendy terms like "evolution" or "science" - stupidity and illiteracy is pretty much a perquisite for believing any of that bullshit.

It's funny how many people I know who think that the theory has some explanation for the appearance of life in the first place when even the title of the book won't go that far. I think that bit of confusion is what causes atheists to cling so hard to it: they think it explains why life exists, rather than being a semi-interesting series of observations (or tautologies) about the variations of life.

As far as I understand it, abiogenesis (the theory of life arising from the primordial ooze) has a bunch of fancy models behind it but has never been achieved in a lab, nor it has even happened in nature other than the putative first time.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

I mean, it's true. It's always been funny to me that self-annointed Liberals champion Evolutionary ideology, yet it has the most racist-as-fuck roots. Pretty much all of its founders deemed nigs an inferior species.

It's kind of like with Margaret Sanger and eugenics. Everyone involved today just says: "yeah, but we don't believe in that anymore!" But you're adhering to the practices and ideologies of people who you'd demand the cancellation of today. In short, don't bitch about H.P. Lovecraft being an evil racist and then excuse Darwin for some reason.

It also doesn't help that eugenics is empirically provable. Dog breeding is a practical application of eugenics and we see how it affects even mental temperament of different breeds. A Pitbull is going to be more stubborn than a Pomeranian. There are always exceptions to the rule, as in anything involving stats, but one can make educated guesses based on breeds.