Evidence for God from Science

My answers to everything you said are right there in my quotes that you quoted.

Saying evolution is racist because of Darwins views is like saying Christianity is racist because of the extremely Jewish supremacist views of the Old Testament.

Ivellious wrote:
And a quick note on linking evolution with racism. It is absolutely wrong to say that, because evolutionary theory has (incorrectly) been used to promote racism, that it is an inherently racist concept. Same goes for saying that, because Darwin and many others in his time had racist views, that evolution is also racist. By that logic, America and our Constitution is inherently racist and sexist, because this country was built on slavery and many of our founding fathers were incredibly racist and sexist.

That sounds remarkably similar to the argument used by many southerners. Just because racist groups use the rebel flag to promote racism, that doesn't mean the rebel flag is a racist symbol. I agree. The rebel flag is a racist symbol because it is a symbol of the rights of certain people to own slaves.

Darwinian evolution is racist because it says certain races are more evolved than others. Or, certain races are less human than others.

Actually Rick, using your approach i could then say that since most of the men in the Bible were racist and sexist then so is the bible.

Seraph wrote:My answers to everything you said are right there in my quotes that you quoted.

Saying evolution is racist because of Darwins views is like saying Christianity is racist because of the extremely Jewish supremacist views of the Old Testament.

Seraph,

I'm not saying his theory is racist because he's a racist. I'm saying his theory is racist because according to his theory, blacks weren't as human as whites.

And his own words, describing his theory(beliefs) showed that.

neo-x wrote:Actually Rick, using your approach i could then say that since most of the men in the Bible were racist and sexist then so is the bible.

Are you for real? Most of the men in the bible were racist? You have proof for this?

And even if that were true, that makes the bible racist how? If I write a book describing a racist society, that makes me or my book racist?

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:Actually Rick, using your approach i could then say that since most of the men in the Bible were racist and sexist then so is the bible.

Are you for real? Most of the men in the bible were racist? You have proof for this?

And even if that were true, that makes the bible racist how? If I write a book describing a racist society, that makes me or my book racist?

If you are part of the society, why not?

Anyway this is how it concludes, given your approach.

On the other hand, i am sure Darwin was a racist. And his theory was not complete nor completely correct. Evolution as we understand today isn't what Darwin totally thought of... Also if you think that the theory of evolution is racist, then you are contesting truths, that Jamaicans are superior runners, they are a superior race at that. And you are a racist if you accept the fact that they are superior runners . And if you don't think its racist then so isn't saying that a certain race tenda to be more aggressive. You can't pick and choose, either leave it all or accept all.

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:Actually Rick, using your approach i could then say that since most of the men in the Bible were racist and sexist then so is the bible.

Are you for real? Most of the men in the bible were racist? You have proof for this?

And even if that were true, that makes the bible racist how? If I write a book describing a racist society, that makes me or my book racist?

If you are part of the society, why not?

Anyway this is how it concludes, given your approach.

On the other hand, i am sure Darwin was a racist. And his theory was not complete nor completely correct. Evolution as we understand today isn't what Darwin totally thought of... Also if you think that the theory of evolution is racist, then you are contesting truths, that Jamaicans are superior runners, they are a superior race at that. And you are a racist if you accept the fact that they are superior runners . And if you don't think its racist then so isn't saying that a certain race tenda to be more aggressive. You can't pick and choose, either leave it all or accept all.

There you go again conflating evolution within a species, with all that Darwinian evolution teaches.


And you are assuming that since I don't believe man evolved from an amoeba, I can't believe there's evolution within the human species.

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:

RickD wrote:

neo-x wrote:Actually Rick, using your approach i could then say that since most of the men in the Bible were racist and sexist then so is the bible.

Are you for real? Most of the men in the bible were racist? You have proof for this?

And even if that were true, that makes the bible racist how? If I write a book describing a racist society, that makes me or my book racist?

If you are part of the society, why not?

Anyway this is how it concludes, given your approach.

On the other hand, i am sure Darwin was a racist. And his theory was not complete nor completely correct. Evolution as we understand today isn't what Darwin totally thought of... Also if you think that the theory of evolution is racist, then you are contesting truths, that Jamaicans are superior runners, they are a superior race at that. And you are a racist if you accept the fact that they are superior runners . And if you don't think its racist then so isn't saying that a certain race tenda to be more aggressive. You can't pick and choose, either leave it all or accept all.

There you go again conflating evolution within a species, with all that Darwinian evolution teaches.


And you are assuming that since I don't believe man evolved from an amoeba, I can't believe there's evolution within the human species.

No i am saying you can't pick and choose traits to label as racist or not. You don't find superior running as racist or breathing at higher altitude, being racist. but aggressive behavior is racist? ... That is having your cake and eat it too.

So be consistent, either its all racist or none is.

Ricks' point is that Darwinian Evolution is racists because it states that there is racial superiority, right Rick?

My point is that saying that one race has a genetic inclination towards violence than another is not racist IF it is true.
Remember that "more violent or aggressive" is is NOT a negative trait, what MAY be negative is how it is nurtured and used.

I think that it is important to understand that not all "races" are the exactly same physically and that we are able to accept the unavoidable findings of science ( today's and tomorrows) and use them to show what makes ALL "races" special as opposed to view those differences always as negative and pass them off as racist.
Fact is, genetics will be stating certain things that MAY be used to portray people in a negative way BUT it is not the science that is stating that, but PEOPLE with an agenda.

We must be aware of this.

Neo wrote:
No i am saying you can't pick and choose traits to label as racist or not. You don't find superior running as racist or breathing at higher altitude, being racist. but aggressive behavior is racist? ... That is having your cake and eat it too.

So be consistent, either its all racist or none is.

You pointed out why in your post Neo.
The link was talking about violent behavior. Being able to sprint faster, or breathe better at high altitudes, are physical adaptations. Blacks being more violent is a behavior. If I said Red-skinned people are more prone to raping prepubescent boys, is that ok? Is that an evolutionary trait too?

So I do believe different groups adapt to their environment over time. But now behavior is part of evolution too?

PaulS wrote:
Ricks' point is that Darwinian Evolution is racists because it states that there is racial superiority, right Rick?

Thank you Paul. This is a perfect example of how we don't have to agree with someone, in order to understand what they're saying. Yes Paul. In a nutshell, that's what I'm saying.

My point is that saying that one race has a genetic inclination towards violence than another is not racist IF it is true.
Remember that "more violent or aggressive" is is NOT a negative trait, what MAY be negative is how it is nurtured and used.

Violent behavior is not negative? I guess in a subjective morality kind of way, maybe.

I think there needs to be a distinction between physical adaptations, and behavior.

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Ricks' point is that Darwinian Evolution is racists because it states that there is racial superiority, right Rick?

Thank you Paul. This is a perfect example of how we don't have to agree with someone, in order to understand what they're saying. Yes Paul. In a nutshell, that's what I'm saying.

My point is that saying that one race has a genetic inclination towards violence than another is not racist IF it is true.
Remember that "more violent or aggressive" is is NOT a negative trait, what MAY be negative is how it is nurtured and used.

Violent behavior is not negative? I guess in a subjective morality kind of way, maybe.

I think there needs to be a distinction between physical adaptations, and behavior.

Aggressive tendencies ( not behavior) is not negative per say.
It is a vital element in some pro sports like boxing and football for example and certainly an asset in the military.

Genetics is about what a person or even a group of people are born with, certain physical ( even mental perhaps) traits.
How people use them, ie: behavior is something different.
If genetics can pinpoint a gene that ALL serial killers have that everyone else doesn't have ( for example), then it means that everyone born with that gene has the genetic trait to be one.
Them becoming one is a whole different matter.

RickD wrote: Blacks being more violent is a behavior. If I said Red-skinned people are more prone to raping prepubescent boys, is that ok? Is that an evolutionary trait too?

Aggressiveness is not just a behavior, there are areas of the brain which have been proven to be linked with increased aggressiveness, so I would disagree that it is not physical and just a behavior.
Of course there is also a choice whether to act upon these aggressive tendencies or not, we still have a freewill after all. Your red skinned people example could be an evolutionary trait if it can be proven that there are areas of the brain linked with that sort of thing, but that doesn't make it right or moral, the Bible teaches us to rise above our natural tendencies.

Behaviors are correlated to our genetics and epigenetics. For instance, the Native American population is much more densely shown to have drug-seeking behavior (alcoholism being the main) than other races. Race and environment (which alters your genetic coding) plays a big importance in how and why your body functions.

People are programmed by the environment and themselves and it continues on to generations. One of the only reasons I can personally justify why future generations of men would be condemned by God in the Bible.

*edit* for word choice and explanation

Mallz wrote:Behaviors are correlated to our genetics and epigenetics. For instance, the Native American population is much more densely shown to have drug-seeking behavior (alcoholism being the main) than other races. Race and environment (which alters your genetic coding) plays a big importance in how and why your body functions.

People are programmed by the environment and themselves and it continues on to generations. One of the only reasons I can personally justify why future generations of men would be condemned by God in the Bible.

*edit* for word choice and explanation

Mallz,

You bring up a good point that seems to be missed here. If people are programmed by their environment, is it possible that environmental factors are the cause of the results of this study?

At the beginning of this thread, I said:

If someone says a particular group is more prone to violence because of their race, then yes, that's racism. Were ALL other factors considered? All?

I think it's extremely irresponsible to attribute the differences to race without being sure all other factors were considered.