Download Darwinism - IslamNewcastle

Darwinism & Racism
• Darwinian evolution is inherently a
racist philosophy, teaching that different
groups or races evolved at different times
and rates, so some groups are more like
their ape-like ancestors than others.[14]
• Before Darwinian evolution was
popularized, when most people talked
about "races," they were referring to such
groups as the "English race," "Irish race,"
etc.[14]
• Robert N. Proctor (Racial Hygiene:
Medicine Under the Nazis [1988])
observed: "Prior to Darwin, it was difficult
to argue against the Judeo-Christian
conception of the unity of man, based on
the single creation of Adam and Eve.
Darwin 's theory suggested that humans
had evolved over hundreds of thousands,
even millions of years, and that the races
of men had diverged while adapting to the
particularities of local conditions. The
impact of Darwin's theory was
enormous."[17]
• Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the
"Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary
positions between the "Baboon" and the
"civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"); viz:
At some future period, not very distant as
measured by centuries, the civilized races
of man will almost certainly exterminate,
and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time, the
anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt
be exterminated. The break between man
and his nearest allies will then be wider,
for it will intervene between man in a more
civilized state, as we may hope, even than
the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a
baboon, instead of as now between the
Negro [sic] or Australian and the
gorilla.[49, 3]
• Despite his hatred of slavery, Darwin's
writings reek with all kinds of contempt for
"primitive" people.[17]
• Thomas Huxley wrote: "No rational man,
cognizant of the facts, believes that the
average Negro (sic) is the equal, still less
the superior, of the white man. And if this
be true, it is simply incredible that, when
all his disabilities are removed, and our
prognathous relative has a fair field and no
favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be
able to compete successively with his
bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in
a contest which is to be carried on by
thoughts and not by bites." (Lay Sermons,
Addresses, and Reviews, 1871)[17]
• Many of the early evolutionists were
outspoken racists, and racial inferiority
views were assumed to be proven, and
thus were less a subject of debate or
concern than one today would
assume.[17]
• "Eugenics" Defined
• Sir Francis Galton, founder of the
eugenics movement, believed very
strongly that intelligence was mainly
hereditary. He was also convinced there
were profound differences in mental ability
between the races. He regarded Negroes
as barely human at all.[17]
• Robert Chambers in his classic Vestiges
of the Natural History of Creation,
concluded that Blacks were "at the foot of"
the Mongol, the Yellow race between, and
Caucasians at the top. Chambers himself
taught that the "various races of mankind,
are simply . . . stages in the development
of the highest or Caucasian type. . ." and
that the Blacks were the least developed,
and the Caucasians were the highest, most
evolved race.[17]
• Although support for Darwin's theory
was by no means universal, by the 1920s
textbooks such as George William Hunter's
1914 Civic Biology that supported the idea
that man had evolved from a lower life
form, were prevalent in public schools. The
message provided fuel to the growing
eugenics movement in the United States.
It concluded that as man descended from
a lower life form, he evolved to varying
degrees of accomplishment.[17]
• Eugenics took root in America in the
early twentieth century — some 33 states
adopted forced sterilization programs to
prevent the "feeble-minded" and other
"defectives" from reproducing.[59]
• Henry Fairfield Osborn, professor of
biology and zoology at Columbia University
from 1908-1933 and President of the
American Museum of Natural History's
Board of Trustees wrote: "The Negroid
stock is even more ancient than the
Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be
proved by an examination not only of the
brain, of the hair, of the bodily
characteristics . . . but of the instincts, the
intelligence. The standard of intelligence of
the average adult Negro is similar to that
of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species
Homo Sapiens."[3]
• In evolutionary theory, the survival
advantage factor is the chief explanation
for the existence of most differences.
Because these differences result from the
survival advantage that they confer upon
an organism, an evolutionist must assume
differences between or within a group
likely exist because they provide some
inherent survival advantage for the
animal. Since the key survival advantage
of humankind over "lower animals" is
intelligence, consequently differences in
this trait likely also exist between the
races. This is exactly what has been
assumed by many eugenicists,
evolutionists, sociologists, and
psychologists, both before and since the
time of Darwin. This conclusion has
justified a wide variety of governmental
and scientific policies, not the least
infamous were racial genocide
programs.[17]
• The two races most often compared are
the "Caucasian" and "Negroid," now
commonly called the "white" and "black"
races. The dominant western cultural
ethos, that whites were "superior"' and
blacks "inferior"' and more "ape-like," was
commonly reflected in science books
published from 1880 and 1980.[17]
• H. Klaatsch, a prominent German
evolutionist, concluded that human races
differ not only because of survival factors,
but also for the reason that they evolved
from different primates. The Blacks came
from the gorillas, the Whites from the
chimpanzees, and the Orientals from the
orangutans, and it is for this reason that
some races are superior. He concluded
that "the gorilla and the Neanderthal man"
have a close biological affinity to "a large
number of the living African blacks . .
."[17]
• In the 1920s, an article in the
Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading
"Negro", said that the inherent mental
inferiority of the blacks was even more
marked than their physical differences and
that no full blooded Negro has ever been
distinguished as a man of science, a poet,
or an artist.[17]
• M. L. Moser (The Case Against
Integration, 1974) says, "... American
Negroes that have made contributions to
various fields, sports, science, etc., but ...
It is only that Negro that has a mixture of
white genes in his system that has risen to
the level where he has produced on the
level with the white race."[17]
• The racism which developed from the
theory of evolution was by no means
confined to Blacks. One of the leading
American eugenicists, Charles Davenport,
founder and director of the prestigious
Cold Spring Harbor Biological Laboratory,
concluded that Black Americans were
below Caucasians-but so were several
other groups. Among the groups that he
included were 'the Poles, the Irish, the
Italians, and . . . the Hebrews' and even
the Serbians, Greeks, Swedes, and
Bohemians.[17]
• Mark H. Haller (Eugenics: Hereditarian
Attitudes in American Thought, 1984)
writes: "[T]o understand attitudes of racial
inferiority in the context of nineteenthcentury science and social science is a first
step in fathoming the depth of race
prejudice in our own day. Inferiority was at
the very foundation of their evolutionary
framework and, remaining there, rose to
the pinnacle of "truth " with the myth of
scientific certainty. To see racial prejudices
in their scientific robes is to understand
why attitudes of racial inferiority have
continued to plague western culture."[17]
• At the US 1923 immigration hearings
"many witnesses argued that "biology"'
demanded the exclusion of most members
of the Eastern and Southern European
"races." "The primary reason for the
restriction of the alien stream . . . is the
necessity for purifying and keeping pure
the blood of America."[17]
• The result was that in April 1924 the
immigration act was passed by
overwhelming majorities in both the house
and senate. President Calvin Coolidge
supported the law, stating that, "America
must be kept American. Biological laws
show . . . that Nordics deteriorate when
mixed with other races."[17]
• ADOLPH HITLER USED EVOLUTION
AS HIS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE
HOLOCAUST.
• Planned Parenthood Federation of
America (See Abortion section) was
started by a racist, Margaret Sanger, who
drew upon writings from socialists and
eugenicists. She even published articles
from Adolf Hitler's director of eugenic
sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned
"The Negro Project," her strategy for
eliminating the black population.[65] She
believed in removing what she called "the
dead weight of human waste." [59] In the
last week of July 2002, a lawyer in
Missouri filed a federal lawsuit against
Planned Parenthood for their failure to fully
inform women about abortion. The lawyer
also argued that Planned Parenthood is a
racist organization that targets minority
women.[65]
• Natural Selection and the Columbine
Killings
• Alfred Russell Wallace , one of the few
19th century non-racists, believed that the
differences in behavior found between the
black and white races, contrary to the
conclusions of evolutionists around him,
were because of cultural conditioning
which "can integrate the rudest savage
into our own most courtly life."[17]
• Today, all human beings in the world
today, are classified as Homo Sapiens and
scientists now admit that, biologically,
there really is only one race of
humans.[14]
• An ABC News science page stated, "More
and more scientists find that the
differences that set us apart are cultural,
not racial. Some even say that the word
'race' should be abandoned because it's
meaningless."[14]
• The Bible does not even use the word
"race" in reference to people, but does
describe all human beings as being of "one
blood" (Acts 17:26)[14]
• Scientists found that if any two people
from anywhere in the world were
compared, the basic genetic differences
between these two would typically be
around 0.2 percent - even if they came
from the same people group.[14]
• So-called "racial" characteristics that
many think are major differences (skin
color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 6
percent of this 0.2 percent variation, which
amounts to a mere 0.012 percent
difference generically. In other words, the
so-called "racial" differences are absolutely
trivial.[14]
• Recent IQ tests of people throughout the
world have found that, with allowance for
cultural differences, the IQ ranges of all
extant identified races is extremely close.
The pygmy population of Africa,
supposedly the most backward race extant
today, test close to average when
acclimated to Western life. Few differences
are found between the second and third
generation pygmies living in large
Australian cities who are acclimated to the
established European population.[17]
• It is now widely accepted that, given
equality of background and similarity of
experiences, blacks as a whole closely
equal whites in across the-board
performance. This confirms prominent
anthropologist, Ruth Benedict's early
conclusion that "the most careful
investigation" shows there is no significant
difference between the scores of blacks
and whites, even though it is difficult to
control for the accumulative effects of
deprivation.[17]
• Most studies also find that Orientals and
Jews score about ten points higher than
Europeans. Reasons other than innate
differences are often found to account for
this difference, and few scientists now
accept the view that genetic differences
can account for the level found.[17]
• Recently, in Louisiana, African American
State Representative Sharon Weston
Broome charged that, "Darwin's ideas on
how humans evolved are racist and the
key reason for race problems [and]
provide the main rationale for racism." As
Broome logically concluded, "If evolution
has provided the main rationale for racism,
and we are teaching our children evolution
in schools, then correspondingly we are
teaching them racist principles."
Science Refutes Darwinism
• According to the theory of evolution, at
some time in the distant past there was no
life in the universe -- just elements and
chemical compounds. Somehow, these
chemicals combined and came to life
• However, scientists don't really know
how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller,
whose experiments are cited in most
biology text books, says that the origin of
life is still unknown. The idea that dead
material can come to life all by itself is not
consistent with scientific observation.
• The leading mathematicians in the
century met with some evolutionary
biologists and confronted them with the
fact that according to mathematical
statistics, the probabilities of a cell or a
protein molecule coming into existence
were nil. They even constructed a model of
a large computer and tried to figure out
the possibilities of a cell ever happening.
The result was zero possibility! - Wistar
Institute, 1966
• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The
probability of life originating from accident
is comparable to the probability of the
Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an
explosion in a printing shop."
• Under normal circumstances, creatures
give birth to the same kind of creatures. It
is established scientific fact that like
begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in
an embryo is damaged, resulting in a
mutant child that differs in some respect
from its parent. Although a few mutations
have been scientifically observed that are
beneficial, most mutations produce inferior
offspring. For the theory of evolution to be
true, there must be a fantastic number of
creative mutations that produce new kinds
of offspring which are better suited for
survival, and therefore are favored by
natural selection
Darwinists claim that the reptile-tomammal evolution is well documented. But
for reptiles to evolve into mammals at
least some of these transformations must
have happened:
• Scales had to have mutated into hair.
• Breasts had to have evolved from
nothing
• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into
soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by
an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.
• It has never been observed in any
laboratory that mutations can cause one
species to turn into another. Despite this,
evolutionists believe that given enough
time, some animals will eventually evolve
into other creatures.
Evolutionists claim that although we have
not actually observed these things
happening, that does not mean that they
are impossible. They say it simply means
they are extremely improbable.
Evolutionists think the world has been
around long enough for all these highly
improbable things to happen.
• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University
stated that statistically the chances of one
cell evolving was the same as a tornado
passing through a junkyard and giving you
a fully functional Boeing 747.
Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory
• The Fossil Record
• Living "Fossils"
• The Cambrian Explosion
• New T.Rex Discoveries
• "Missing Links"
• There are many creatures that defy
evolution. All of the examples below
illustrate complex and sophisticated
biological structures. It is difficult to
believe that these creatures could have
evolved, since all of their systems had to
have been in place at the start for them to
survive.
"Science now knows that many of the
pillars of Darwinian theory are either false
or misleading. Yet biology texts continue
to present them as factual evidence of
evolution. What does this imply about their
scientific standards?" — Jonathan Wells
(Recipient of two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology
from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in
Religious Studies from Yale University. Has worked as a
postdoctoral research biologist at the University of
California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical
laboratory in Fairfield, California. Has taught biology at
California State University in Hayward.)