Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:02:43 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(ambrose searle) wrote:

>Arne Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> (Darwin was also wrong on numerous 
>> accounts),
>
>That's the admission that apparently many of your ilk cannot bring
>themselves to admit. This was the beginning problem that led to this
>present thread: when Lechevalier said that Darwin held no theory of
>Social Darwinism.

Can you ever say anything at all without lying?


>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3331337389d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=6bvtrvgcjr1j1polpriuolmfjqjnj2nhj9%404ax.com
>
>He was dead wrong.
>
>> But I already see it's no use debating you. You're an ideologist like 
>> any other, you have your conclusions, and now you work your way back 
>> from them to selected evidence. No one claims Darwin was infallible. 
>
>Why then do posters of your ilk bend over backwards to say that Darwin
>had nothing to do with the theory that races are superior or inferior
>as a result of natural selection?

Because he didn't.  It was not his theory, nor was it a scientific
theory at all.  He may or may not have agreed with parts of it, but it
was not his theory.  It is really very simple.  That fact says nothing
good or bad about Darwin; it is just simply the truth.  The truth is
not something you care too much for.

snip
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.