Darwinians/Darwinists/Evolutionists ...?

I haven't read it, and I don't really care if he was a racist or not. He lived in a very different time period where cultural understanding was not as good as it is now. Darwin's work on evolution was groundbreaking, he pretty much came up with the theory through his own research. Just because he did great things, doesn't mean I agree with everything he says, or anything for that matter. I don't accept evolution becuase of darwin, but because of all of the evidence he found, and other people found after him. He didn't even get to learn what DNA is, and yet he still came up with science that stands today. I think you are being dishonest by trying to make evolutionary theory look bad, just because Darwin may have had some negative opinions about other people. His opinion about other races of people, has nothing to do with mine.

These are things that are said from a person from a different time with different views on society and the world. However, it does not change anything about the theory of evolution. Some of the founding fathers of the U.S. supported slavery. However, that does not mean that their work now becomes invalid.

The same goes for the theory of evolution being used to justify some evil deeds done by evil people. Economic theory has been used to justify evil deeds by evil people but that does not make the economic theory invalid. The theory of evolution can stand on its own without Darwin. The evidence for it still exists in gigantic quantities.

The common view at the time of these writings were that races were divided into superior and lesser races. Bear in mind that this was long before we had genetics and DNA testing, which has since proven that the differences between the races aren't significant enough for us to be able to say that one race is better than the other.

Social darwinism was a jumped-to conclusion based off of Darwin's findings as well as prejudices ingrained into Western society long before the Beagle made its stop at the Galapagos.

Darwin's marriage to his cousin happened before we had genetic testing which showed that inbreeding can cause undesirable mutations in offspring. Also, keep in mind that this happened in the days before we had electronic means of keeping track of births and populations, and so inbreeding happened far more often back then, whether consciously or not.

Hope that helps with understanding.

Darwin was a product of his era and lived in a time in which civilization and biological race were confused. It was thought at the time that race determined culture, and since colonialistic European powers were systematically wiping out the cultures in the countries they took over, Darwin's observations made sense in that context. Now, compare his beliefs to those of American Christians at the same time, many of whom owned slaves, believed that blacks were incapable of being anything but servants, and thought that non-whites were all simple and child-like. Darwin was actually less racist than most of his contemporaries.

Hitler rejected Darwin's works, ordered his books destroyed, and stated publicly that he did not believe in common descent. The KKK was and is overtly Christian.

I know creationists love to lie about the relationship between Darwin and racism, and I know how much creationists depend on their lies, so I don't expect you to give up your lies for anything, no matter how wrong those ideas are. Creationism is a house built entirely on lies.

This is exactly what is meant by 'we learn and grow'. Darwin was around in a time when it was thought that these people were savages and white man was supreme. Thankfully we learn in time that this is not so. It still does not take away what Darwin gave to us in science. He probably said a lot of other stupid chit too, but remember that was the age that he lived in.

Now if you want to use this argument for one man, then I am sure we atheists can provide a thousand and one examples of christian horror throughout history. At least Darwin did not act on his words, unlike a lot of christians have.

The Nazi campaign to purify the Aryan race had nothing to do with Darwin and his theory of Evolution. It was simply an extension of the farming practices used for millennia to breed optimum animal stock - i.e. breed from the desirable and eliminate the undesirable.

I have no reason to defend Darwin the person. I defend the logic of his science. What a childish argument.

I don't like Mike Tyson either, but I don't argue with his sporting ability.

'cornerstone of ideologies such as Nazism, KKK-ism'

Actually I think you'll find the cornerstones of those ideologies is religion. Y'know, that big burning cross on the top of the hill?

Unlike Jesus, Darwin could have been a completely horrible person who thought leprechauns ruled the earth. The fact is that he discovered something huge, and just because the man was a bigot or a Nazi, doesn't mean what he discovered wasn't anything but incredible

It's kind of like saying "the guy who discovered Macchu Picchu murdered 8 babies! Therefore Macchu Picchu doesn't exist!"

This is Darwin predicting Nazism, KKKism and other racism. Read it again. He was like a "prophet" if you prefer.

Remember, Evolution is not a religion, it is a theory. Nobody believes in Evolution in a religious level. And never did Hitler say "Darwin said we should kill all Jews".

-Ad Hominem Alone, the last refuge of the *whipped* scoundrel.-

Lets be clear about this: Darwin could have eaten raw babies for breakfast every morning for 50 years of his life, and the fact of evolution would still be an evidence supported reality.