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

ambrose searle wrote in talk.origins

>> >> (Darwin was also wrong on numerous 
>> >> accounts),
>> > 
>> > That's the admission that apparently many of your ilk cannot bring
>> > themselves to admit. 
>> 
>> Wrong, almost everyone who has any understanding of evolution and Darwin
>> knows and says this.
> 
> Which was my point at the outset of the thread, but one of YOUR ilk, a
> "Carol Lee Smith" contested it:

as always you are either wrong or lying. I said that Darwin was wrong on
many points, you claimed that his theories had been refuted. There is a 
major difference. His theories have not been refuted. They have been 
improved upon and modified, but not refuted.

> 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.OSF.3.96.1031122092344.19981U-
100000%40alpha1.csd.uwm.edu&output
> 
>> However, people of your ilk always make some claim
>> about Darwin, almost always false, 
> 
> Darwin was a racist, and his racism was grounded in his "science."
> Period. Fact. Demonstrable. Proven.

Claimed but never proven. All we have ever seen are misinterpretations
of his writing by people who seem to think that casting aspersions on
Darwin's character somehow disproves science.

> 
>> and then try to make out that he was
>> wrong in what you claim.
> 
> Good science does not lead to racism. Darwin was wrong.

And you have everything backwards. Any racism in victorian england
was based upon the English arrogance and biblical interpretation,
not science.

> 
>> > This was the beginning problem that led to this
>> > present thread: when Lechevalier said that Darwin held no theory of
>> > Social Darwinism.
>> 
>> No, the beginning of the problem is when you posted your lies to the 
>> usenet.
> 
> Your broad, unsupported assertion is typical.

What unsupported assertion? You lied, you posted them to the usenet.
and that is when our problem with your lies started.

> 
>> > 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?
>> 
>> That is not social darwinism.
> 
> Yep, sure is:
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=social%20darwinism
> 
> and that is what Darwin believed.
> 
>> > It is those who are ideologues unwilling to follow the evidence
>> > wherever it lies.
>> 
>> It is you who are unwilling to be intellectually honest. It is you
>> who, for some reason, hates Darwin so much that you have to invent
>> stories, and take quotes out of context in order to force the facts
>> to fit your prejudices.
> 
> Darwin's words are so clear that all one has to do is go right to his
> writings to see that he held the view  that individuals or groups
> achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological
> superiority.

That is common of victorian thought, and even more common among the
anti evolutionist. 
And that is something that you seem to be hell bent on ignoring.
As a matter of fact, your entire premise is built upon your modern
understanding of everything, not any understanding of the way things
really were 150 years ago.

snip

-- 
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]