Darwin: Man or Monster?

Was he really the average family-man he is often depicted as in media, or a racist humanist monster who wished for the genocide of anyone who wasn't an Anglo and the destruction of the church?

Other urls found in this thread:

creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>average family-man he is often depicted as in media
since when is there much of a portrayal of him in the media at all? most plebs only know him as that guy who came up with evolution and visited some island with birds and turtles

...

Or rather, that guy who said we come from monkeys

Elaborate on where does the 'racist humanist monster who wished for the genocide of anyone who wasn't an Anglo' hypothesis comes from, if you will. Origin, evidence for?

...

...looks like baloney to me

Got a baloney detector right here, and the only thing it loads as baloney is this kind of stuff.

Where in the fuck do people get the idea that he's a racist? Im fairly sure there are a few quotes people cherry pick out of his book "The Descent of Man", which can be viewed as racist, but theres some misunderstanding. And these are same people who tend to believe Social Darwinist ideas come from Charles and not Herbert Spencer.

>mfw the word nazi is synonymous with racist

your point being... evolutionary theory is faulty?

>Less evolved
There is no such thing as 'less' evolved. There are things like 'less adapted to certain conditions' but no thing like less evolved.

I mean, it's not like being racist was unusual for a 19th century Brit. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a bit racist but I don't think he wished genocide on anyone.

>and the destruction of the church?

Dunno about the genodice of non anglos, could be, everyone hated each other back then, but IIRC dude was a christian, so I doubt he'd hate on the church.

The protties went down the dark path of lay interpretation, and then got stuck on the road of Biblical literalism, to which the theory of evolution was a deathblow.

Now you see them throwing shit against the wall to see if anything sticks.

>less evolved
This is the second biggest red flag denoting someone who doesn't know shit about evolution; only being outdone by the classic "why are there still monkeys?"

>A man from the 1850s being racist
No...say it ain't so OP.

got a PDF of that?

I'm asking for a friend

a human being is no "more" or "less" evolved than a photoplankton.

"We Should Just Ask Negros To Leave"

>6 Editions

glances down

Oh..... Kentucky.

Conflating social darwinists with actual evolution is a pretty easy way to identify complete fucking idiots.

And yet about 3/4 of my male friends believe exactly this and use it as a justification for pretty much all faux Alpha male bs behaviour.

Idk what backwater shithole you're from, I grew up in Mormonland and even there Social Darwinism is considered a meme. Where did you even derive the 3/4 figure? Do you only have four friends and happen to have only racist friends?

I'm from London - my friends are regular upper middle class and mostly white people with fairly mainstream views.

But I keep getting comments which are versions of:

>The main purpose of life is just to survive and procreate
>Im just trying to get the best mate, thats natural. I have to be an alpha male to get the best girl
>The modern business world is survival of the fitest

I mean, this all feels rather reductionist to me and yet everyone believes this is the true under level of all motivation.

Pretty much, and that the only people who support it are atheistic assholes and their media dick-riders.

>amerifat detected
You're that one lonely YEC loser here, aren't you?

His family was religious and he was agnostic. I don't get why atheists always circle jerk over him. It proves nothing and even he says so.

This is not atheists jerking, but the bible boys having troubles with science.
>taking bronze age myths litteraly

Wasn't his theory based off of another guy's theory that was based off the Islamic Theory of Evolution though? Basically the same except survival of the fittest instead of God perfecting evolution.

Just out of interest, what kind of school system does let people like you loose on the internet?

I have no idea why we constantly have these threads where people pretend they dont know what the evolution theory is and pretend to be bible humpers. Is it some half hearted attempt to just bore everyone to leave the board until only shitposters remain?

I'm not quite sure I understand you because of your poor grammar, but University of Virginia let me "loose"

>Islamic Theory of Evolution

His work is literally nothing new. Even Muslims centuries before him wrote about the basics of evolution theory. Khaldun wrote about the basics of evolution and all live starting from non life material, from plants to animals. And Nasir al-Din al-Tusi went further discussing transmutation and natural selection and how hereditary variability was an important factor for biological evolution of living things. All ~600 years before Darwin. The first "atheist" points of view on evolution were from the 17th century, describing evolution as a mechanical event that required no divine guidance. There has been naturalist views on evolution centuries before Darwin and his theory claimed nothing new. Fact is there are many theories of evolution all with mountains of scientific data, yet they contradict each other. The only reason people consider Darwin's is because that's what our schools teach us.

>short philosophical article != scientific theory
Son, I'm really sorry if your holy book is in conflict with science, but you gotta stop making this threads.
Instead, try to take your book not literally and enjoy life.

I've heard it a lot too, though I don't think people are hardcore social darwinists, rather they see it as some kind of 'scientific' justification for their behaviour.
In reality a social darwinist just deifies nature, but tries to mask it under scientific theory, despite the fact that Darwin's theory doesn't have a moral component and there's no reason to apply it to morality.

Most of our science, math, and philosophy came from religious people/groups.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

And yet most people do this constantly.

I have a feeling people like this because its probably brutal enough to be believably grim, but not as grim as the I suspect dark sexual shame based motivations that are at the real core of my being. I'm trying not to dwell... just send of more resumes.

Funnily, science just works just fine on its own.
Now go find some proofs that Dinosaurs walked among or whatever you spend your time with.

Just so you know, there are creationists here that seriously do not know what the evolution theory is and then start threads like that.
>yes, it is so stupid that it is hard to tell from trolling

Not him, but good on him for sticking around.
creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm

>Atheism must have must have something to do the Theory of Evolution
Sort of. I mean, if you interpret the Bible literally you might just see how Evolution would contradict your world view, other than that it has no relation with each other. I could give two shits if you believe in God.

>a skeptic but not on evolution
Confirmed for never having studied it. We're in the middle of one of the biggest upheavals int he theory since Darwin himself.

Even Ghandi wanted to eliminate blacks.

Neither of them knew about jazz or blues. If they'd have known about what black people can accomplish musically they'd have let them nig all they wanted.

How and why do people conflate biological drive with life purpose?

If anything can be explained as "they're stupid," then that's the explanation.

I'd separate the last example you give from the other two. That last one sounds like a classic example of social darwinist crap being used to justify ruthless behavior, ie 'I backstabbed someone to get ahead but hey, that's how nature works so it's ok'.
But the others have more to do with what biologists call mate selection, and sexual selection. From a biological standpoint not only are survival and reproduction the main purpose, but the only purpose of life; so it is natural to try to get the best mate(s) you can; and yes, most (all?) women are attracted to alpha males. Now I agree alpha male posturing is obnoxious, please don't get me wrong. But if men are genetically programmed to act this way, and women are genetically programmed to be aroused by this, what can you do? I think layers of culture can modify genetic predisposition only to a certain point

>less evolved

>it's faulty
How?

Part ape.

But all huimans are all ape.

Darwin was anti-racism.