Video: Glenn Beck on Christianity, atheism, and liberty

posted at 5:51 pm on September 12, 2009 by Allahpundit

He does less talking here than his guests, actually, but the clip’s obligatory after the food fight in last night’s 9/12 Project thread. Two noteworthy statements by GB. One: He reminds Randian atheist Yaron Brook that the country was founded on the idea of religious (and irreligious) coexistence, which is certainly true and which would have made a fine “core principle” for that libertarian Project of his in lieu of the one declaring God “the center of my life.” Two: A few minutes earlier, he tells the Christian minister that “we must restore God in his rightful place because these rights belong to him.” What he means by “rightful place” is unclear — prayer in public schools or something more? — but the canard about divine rights is an ancient atheist pet peeve. Good luck getting God to protect your rights when they’re being trampled on, and better luck in trying to form a consensus between left and right on precisely which rights “belong to him” and what that means in practice. Do I have a right to be cared for when I’m sick? I say no, but I don’t think it’s nutty that a socialist might read Biblical passages about doing unto others and being my brother’s keeper and conclude otherwise. Watch Brook for more on that, although it’s nothing you haven’t heard before.

As for the minister, it sounds like he’s suggesting ObamaCare is actually a Darwinist (or rather, social Darwinist) plot by godless elites to thin the herd of baby boomers, but I might be misunderstanding him.

`

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7

I guess I dont, it does not say anyhting about lions and lambs in your bible or mine. I know I have the phrase about a child placing his hand on the vipers den. Of course, Isaiah is full of some pretty deep imagery.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 10:37 AM

oh gee, I didn’t know you were such a biblical scholar…but it does confirm you’re a pompous azz…

Isaiah 65:25 The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 10:39 AM

Dont see lions laying down with lambs. That was my point, common misquote.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM

couldn’t be that you can’t defend your faith…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 10:29 AM

What’s the point? You’ve responded to everything I’ve said with the rhetorical equivalent of, “is not!” How can I rebut that? “Is too?” No thanks. It’s an impossible argument. You ask for a summary of 150 years of scientific work every time you don’t understand some nuance of evolutionary biology, yet require nothing more than “the bible says so” to justify your own beliefs.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 10:42 AM

oh gee, I didn’t know you were such a biblical scholar…but it does confirm you’re a pompous azz…

I admit, I am less read in that Greek addendum you guys added, but we all cant be perfect like you.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 10:43 AM

Darwin, who said the civillised races would exterminate the savage races, was racist even by 19th century standards. His contemporaries were writers like Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain and Roger Casement, the Abolitionists, the British colonists who created the Indian Civil Service…all of whom would have been extremely nonplussed at the idea of exterminating whole races of people from the earth.

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 10:45 AM

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 10:24 AM

it really doesn’t matter what you believe or not…

If it doesn’t matter what I believe, then how does it matter what you believe? It’s arrogant and dismissive statements like this that terminate discussions here and throughout conservative and religious communities. It is also exactly this type of attitude that causes fear among many voters about Christian Conservatives controlling government.

What’s the difference between your statement and Obama telling everyone it’s time to shut up and pass his health care bill?

the history is undeniable….

I didn’t and don’t deny that evolution was historically used to promote eugenics.

and evolution is totally incompatible with christianity…I posted this earlier…

The Catholic Church does support the teaching of evolution and does not support a word-for-word for word literal interpretation of The Holy Bible. Most other Christian denominations do similarly. So, please tell me how we are to have any discussion at all when you have just dismissed my beliefs and the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Christians in the America and the world as being “incompatible with christianity?”

You can try to start this conversation again by changing your tone and words, or you can leave it at full stop.

And may peace be with you.

Loxodonta on September 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM

What’s the point? You’ve responded to everything I’ve said with the rhetorical equivalent of, “is not!” How can I rebut that? “Is too?” No thanks. It’s an impossible argument. You ask for a summary of 150 years of scientific work every time you don’t understand some nuance of evolutionary biology, yet require nothing more than “the bible says so” to justify your own beliefs.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 10:42 AM

really? how many links did you provide?? any?? you make statements, like ‘convergent evolution’ with nothing to support your contentions.

I’m the one who has quoted the scientific literature, not you…then you accuse me of ‘quote mining’ which is darwiniac for ‘he’s tellin the truth and I can’t handle it’

and of course you go back to the old darwiniac saw..’you don’t understand evolution’…but its rather obvious I understand it better than you do…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM

An Unwelcome Guest

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 10:48 AM

Darwin, who said the civillised races would exterminate the savage races, was racist even by 19th century standards. His contemporaries were writers like Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain and Roger Casement, the Abolitionists, the British colonists who created the Indian Civil Service…all of whom would have been extremely nonplussed at the idea of exterminating whole races of people from the earth.

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Those standards included slavery for the better part of the 19th century, so I don’t think there’s really an equitable comparison to be made. In any case, it’s irrelevant to the truth of evolution.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 10:50 AM

If it doesn’t matter what I believe, then how does it matter what you believe? It’s arrogant and dismissive statements like this that terminate discussions here and throughout conservative and religious communities. It is also exactly this type of attitude that causes fear among many voters about Christian Conservatives controlling government

I somehow manage to post sources, and quotes that back up what I say…have you?? its not dismissive..its the truth….people can say whatever they want…but if its not backed up with anything, then its just another opinion…and it doesn’t mean much..you say darwinism is NOT racist….back it up.

The Catholic Church does support the teaching of evolution and does not support a word-for-word for word literal interpretation of The Holy

the catholic church supports THEISTIC EVOLUTION…not the materialistic evolution that IS EVOLUTION..

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was “more than just a hypothesis,” defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance – or at least acquiescence – of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

link

Christoph Sch–nborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

do you really know what your own church teaches???

You can try to start this conversation again by changing your tone and words, or you can leave it at full stop.

And may peace be with you.

Loxodonta on September 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM

I’d rather leave it at a full-stop…I’ve dealt with you before, and it is never pleasant.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 10:53 AM

I didn’t and don’t deny that evolution was historically used to promote eugenics.

eugenics is racist as hell…ever hear of margaret sanger and the ‘negro project’????

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Those standards included slavery for the better part of the 19th century

Not in Darwin’s home country. He would have been in his early 20′s when it was abolished. But my point is that what Darwin proposed was worse than slavery and far worse than patronising colonial subjects.

In any case, it’s irrelevant to the truth of evolution.

The relevance is whether evolution, if true, justifies differential treatment of different races. Darwin obviously thought it did. Now obviously we have taboos against unjust treatment in our somewhat enlightened, liberal culture but can this be justified a on solely materialist basis?

If there is no God, then humans are simply a species of mammal that happens to be distinguished by a greater degree of intelligence than other animals. From this it could quite logically be argued that individuals with greater intelligence are more human than individuals with lower intelligence.

From that it follows that it is in principle okay to treat them in ways that we treat animals of lower intelligence and this is the basis of Social Darwinism. There is no reason why an extreme racialist ideology could not emerge from Darwinian beliefs in the future.

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM

BINGO!! absolutely true….

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:04 AM

And what’s racist about his remarks? Do you claim there is absolutely no difference between different races’ physical and mental capabilities, and whoever thinks scientific data points to just that is a “racist”?

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 10:05 AM

thanks for proving my point about the racism of darwinism…

The eminent biologist told the British newspaper he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.”

Watson, 79, had been due to give a lecture at London’s Science Museum on Friday but the museum canceled his appearance, saying his comments had “gone beyond the point of acceptable debate.”

The American professor’s words have been roundly condemned as “racist,” with fellow scientists dismissing his claims as “genetic nonsense.”

“He should recognize that statements of this sort have racist functions and are to be deeply, deeply regretted,” said Professor Steven Rose of the British Open University.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 10:07 AM

This baloney has nothing to do with eather racism or Darwinism.

Common sense, contemporary study data, and even the Bible – all accept the fact not all men are equal in their intelligence and physical abilities.

Darwinism is merely one explanation of how this fact came into materialization.

Racism is judging a person based on his external traits, such as skin color, which makes Dr. Watson assertions very non-racist, despite the screaming insanity of liberal political correctness.

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 11:10 AM

I’ve dealt with you before, and it is never pleasant.

You are now on my Do Not Respond list. Any time you want to have a person to person discussion, instead of a tyrant to subject discussion, just like Barry does, please let me know.

Loxodonta on September 13, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Loxodonta on September 13, 2009 at 11:10 AM

with you?? and the way you have treated me in the past??

never.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Racism is judging a person based on his external traits, such as skin color, which makes Dr. Watson assertions very non-racist, despite the screaming insanity of liberal political correctness.

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 11:10 AM

you keep proving my point…thanks.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Just a couple of observations in reference to the above discussion;

Many scientists have thought that molecular evolution would be fastest in animals whose physical form, or morphology, also evolved swiftly. The tuatara finding suggests otherwise, that there is no relationship between the two rates.

Live Science.

Evolution is racist. It has to be, or there would be no competition for survival of the fittest – in a particular region. (Just try competing with the inuit).

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM

(Just try competing with the inuit).

You mean like challenging Todd Palin to a snowmobile race?

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 11:17 AM

you keep proving my point…thanks.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Ain’t projection wonderful?

You have done much good for the “Darwinists” with your semi-coherent crypto-marxist ramblings here.

And I speak as an evolution skeptic.

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 11:17 AM

The Catholic Church does support the teaching of evolution and does not support a word-for-word for word literal interpretation of The Holy Bible. Most other Christian denominations do similarly.

Loxodonta on September 13, 2009 at 10:47 AM

If you don’t believe what Christ says is the literal truth, why should anyone consider you a follower of Christ? You either believe Him, or you don’t. If you don’t, stop using His name to promote your made-up doctrines.

TMK on September 13, 2009 at 11:18 AM

You have done much good for the “Darwinists” with your semi-coherent crypto-marxist ramblings here.

And I speak as an evolution skeptic.

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 11:17 AM

crypto marxist?? oh this is too funny…do you think I’m a ‘crypto jew’ too??

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.’

the 2 most pernicious ideas of the 19th century…marxism and darwinism…rooted in atheism…led to so much bloodshed…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:22 AM

crypto marxist?? oh this is too funny…do you think I’m a ‘crypto jew’ too??

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Yes, your ultra-liberal thesis which conjures that all men have equal intelligence and physical traits, indeed has deep Marxist flavor to it, added to anti-science nuttery you usually spew.

And i sure hope you’re not a crypto-Jew. Would be too bad if anyone like you was a part of my people.

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Yes, your ultra-liberal thesis which conjures that all men have equal intelligence and physical traits, indeed has deep Marxist flavor to it, added to anti-science nuttery you usually spew.

And i sure hope you’re not a crypto-Jew. Would be too bad if anyone like you was a part of my people.

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM

this is just nutty….seriously…I never said everyone was totally equal in everything…

you set up a straw man…as usual for a darwiniac.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:27 AM

but unlike darwinism…humans are ONE RACE…not five, as the textbook I quoted earlier said….and we are all EQUAL BEFORE GOD….equal rights…equal humanity…equally precious in HIS SIGHT…

thats the difference….get a clue.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:28 AM

I never said everyone was totally equal in everything…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:27 AM

RACIST!!! DaRWInisT!!!!111

Quick, burn him at the stake!

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 11:17 AM

No. As a successful race, over a long period of time, in the natural environment.

Palin’s skill on a snowmobile isn’t an inherent trait, essential for long-term survival of a race.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM

none of this darwinian BS about ‘lower races’…darwinism is racist as hell…and the posters like aristotle have just reinforced it….

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 11:30 AM

you are a stupid little piece of trash, aren’t you??

you prove evolution isn’t true…or you wouldn’t be around…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:31 AM

OE,

I was only kidding.

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM

but unlike darwinism…humans are ONE RACE…not five, as the textbook I quoted earlier said….and we are all EQUAL BEFORE GOD….equal rights…equal humanity…equally precious in HIS SIGHT…

thats the difference….get a clue.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Still living the past, you have quoted a textbook from the 1920′s. Current evolutionary thought postulates that RACE is merely a social contruct of grouping people by naturally occurring physical traits.

The idea that “race” is somehow a consctruct of Darwinism is ridiculous.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM

The term, Human Race, is a popular misnomer. A more correct term is Human Species – containing several races.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Sorry, aengus, i find myself getting very edgy on such threads – but I can’t tear my eyes away. such entertainment! :)

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:38 AM

you are a stupid little piece of trash, aren’t you??

you prove evolution isn’t true…or you wouldn’t be around…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Evolution, as theorised today, is probably not true.

But Christianity is definitly an abomination, if your kind is the representative of it’s school of logic.

Aristotle on September 13, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The relevance is whether evolution, if true, justifies differential treatment of different races. Darwin obviously thought it did. Now obviously we have taboos against unjust treatment in our somewhat enlightened, liberal culture but can this be justified a on solely materialist basis?

If there is no God, then humans are simply a species of mammal that happens to be distinguished by a greater degree of intelligence than other animals. From this it could quite logically be argued that individuals with greater intelligence are more human than individuals with lower intelligence.

From that it follows that it is in principle okay to treat them in ways that we treat animals of lower intelligence and this is the basis of Social Darwinism. There is no reason why an extreme racialist ideology could not emerge from Darwinian beliefs in the future.

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM

You can’t infer racism inherent in the theory of evolution from Darwin’s personal beliefs (which I don’t think you’re ssessing fairly). That’s a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. The rest is just an ill-fitting straightjacket you’ve sewn atheism into.

Humanity is undefinable in terms of intelligence alone. You may as well argue that we can put people in a heirarchy based on chest-size. You can’t measure the totality of human experience. Maybe I can’t solve a Rubic’s cube as fast as someone else, but I can love my mother as deeply, or suffer injury as badly. How can that not factor into the face value of our respective lives? Or, more to the point, how can it factor into it at all? The mere fact of consciousness puts all human life on an equal footing.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM

assessing, even.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM

In fact Joseph de Gobineau postulated 3 races existed in a tired superiority system a few years before Darwin Published his book.

Gobineau is often credited with providing the philisophical basis for Hitlers eugenics.

Link

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM

The mere fact of consciousness puts all human life on an equal footing.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM

As to possibilities only. Eventual outcomes vary greatly.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Still living the past, you have quoted a textbook from the 1920’s. Current evolutionary thought postulates that RACE is merely a social contruct of grouping people by naturally occurring physical traits.

The idea that “race” is somehow a consctruct of Darwinism is ridiculous.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM

really?

Today, “scientific racism” refers to politically motivated research aiming to scientifically justify racist ideology.

The accusation of scientific racism is often levelled at those whose research claims that there are real differences in intelligence between races, particularly if those differences are claimed to be at least partly genetic in origin. Contemporary researchers who have been called scientific racists include Arthur Jensen (The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability); J. Philippe Rushton, president of the Pioneer Fund (Race, Evolution, and Behavior); Chris Brand (The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications); Richard Lynn (IQ and the Wealth of Nations); Charles Murray; and Richard Herrnstein (The Bell Curve), among others.[42]

The critics of these authors, such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, write that their works are motivated by racist assumptions and are not supported by the available evidence. The authors respond that their work is objective, and that their critics are motivated by prejudice, political correctness or censorship.

Some publications, such as the Mankind Quarterly, have been accused of systematically publishing racist research. The Mankind Quarterly is an anthropology journal that contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race. The journal publishes work they feel might otherwise be ignored, due to its controversial nature.[43]

link

but to the acolytes of Darwin, he can do no wrong…just more proof that evolution is faith, not science.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:51 AM

The idea that “race” is somehow a consctruct of Darwinism is ridiculous.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I always find it amusing to see what lengths darwiniacs go to justify the holiness of their savior, darwin…and his theory, which is pure, holy, and just, in their sight…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM

As to possibilities only. Eventual outcomes vary greatly.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM

I see your point, but I disagree. The eventual outcome is the same for everybody, although the packaging varies.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 11:41 AM

I think that the problem with referring to Hitler, when discussing racism, is that he had, in his mind, more than the mere existence of a particular race with which to formulate his solution. For example, he hated Jews for more than the fact that they were a race that happened to be known as Jewish.

In sum, his hatred covered more than racism itself.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:53 AM

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 11:53 AM

Once again, I fail on communication. I actually meant that what an individual achieves with said consciousness varies greatly on a possible scale.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM

link

but to the acolytes of Darwin, he can do no wrong…just more proof that evolution is faith, not science.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:51 AM

First of all, there were several pre-darwinian souces for “scientific racism”. Second, the fact that these people are widely critisized and condemned in the modern scientific community is a good indicator that they are not considered credible in the modern world. All that article shows is the Racists turned away from the old “curse of Ham” religious justification for their backwards thinking to trying to use science to justify their stupidity.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM

I always find it amusing to see what lengths darwiniacs go to justify the holiness of their savior, darwin…and his theory, which is pure, holy, and just, in their sight…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM

So you really think Race is a construct of Darwinism, even though I provided you a link to a pre-darwinian who postulated something almost identical to the 5 races theory you held up as PROOF that Darwinism is racist. Also, Darwin is not my savior friend.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Once again, I fail on communication. I actually meant that what an individual achieves with said consciousness varies greatly on a possible scale.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM

I can’t argue with that (except the part about failing on communication — if there was a failure it was on my end).

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM

First of all, there were several pre-darwinian souces for “scientific racism”. Second, the fact that these people are widely critisized and condemned in the modern scientific community is a good indicator that they are not considered credible in the modern world. All that article shows is the Racists turned away from the old “curse of Ham” religious justification for their backwards thinking to trying to use science to justify their stupidity.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:03 PM

obviously there were, but as gould says, darwinism greatly increased the scientific justification for racism.

I have shown that evolution has a long history of racism, it is part and parcel of the package…seriously you can deny it all you want…really doesn’t matter…the history speaks for itself….

“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

yeah all these people are wrong…but you are right…sure….

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:06 PM

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 11:53 AM

But Hitler also had broad eugenic views. Abortions not legal for aryans, mandatory sterilization and the T4 “undesireables” program.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM

So you really think Race is a construct of Darwinism, even though I provided you a link to a pre-darwinian who postulated something almost identical to the 5 races theory you held up as PROOF that Darwinism is racist. Also, Darwin is not my savior friend.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM

this is just a typical darwiniac tactic, put up a straw man…you can’t deal with the issues…laughable.

obviously he is…given your whitewashing of him, and his theory.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM

I have shown that evolution has a long history of racism, it is part and parcel of the package…seriously you can deny it all you want…really doesn’t matter…the history speaks for itself….

All you have shown is that racists have used a flegling theory to try to justify their racism. It is not “part or parcel”, modern evolutionary theory has no place for racism because to most biologists and geneticists, “race” does not exist, it is a socialogical construct rather than a biological one.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM

this is just a typical darwiniac tactic, put up a straw man…you can’t deal with the issues…laughable.

What straw man is that?

You imply that the “5 races” was a darwinian Idea

I put up an example of a pre-darwinian theory stating the same thing as a refutation and you say it is a “straw man”?

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:11 PM

You still have not answered my question, is Race and Racial superiority a construct of Darwinism?

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:12 PM

All you have shown is that racists have used a flegling theory to try to justify their racism. It is not “part or parcel”, modern evolutionary theory has no place for racism because to most biologists and geneticists, “race” does not exist, it is a socialogical construct rather than a biological one.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:09 PM

this is laughable…seriously..racism has ALWAYS been part of evolution…and your hysterical denials mean nothing…I’ve posted plenty of proof…this has reached the point of casting pearls before swine.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:14 PM

“It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smallerjawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest.” (Huxley, Thomas Henry [Anatomist, Dean of the Royal College of Science, and "Darwin's Bulldog"], “Emancipation-Black and White,” in Rhys E., ed., “Lectures and Lay Sermons,” [1871], Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 1926, reprint, p.115).

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:15 PM

“The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn’t intellectual opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene.” (Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], “Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World,” [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210).

TRUTH HURTS. deal with it.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM

“Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. … But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel’s greatest influence was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national socialism. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a “just” state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science-all contributed to the rise of Nazism. The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler.” (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], “Ontogeny and Phylogeny,” Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM

You can’t infer racism inherent in the theory of evolution from Darwin’s personal beliefs (which I don’t think you’re ssessing fairly).

Darwin believed in a natural hierarchy separating the “noble Anglo-Saxon race” from the “lower races” for definite. I’m arguing that Darwin’s emphasis on the struggle for existence when coupled with the theory of racial differences (intellectual, physical whatever) and the materialist purposelessness of a godless universe may quite logically lead one to an extreme racialist position.

Christianity says that all people have worth and were created in God’s image. Liberalism says that racial differences (mental and physical) do not exist and any disparate outcomes of success and failure are the fault of white racism, colonialism and discrimination. But if one is neither a Chritian nor a liberal then there is no philosophical brake on one’s definition of fully human or sub-human.

You may as well argue that we can put people in a heirarchy based on chest-size.

Well one could argue that if one accepts the arbitrariness of Darwinian materialism.

You can’t measure the totality of human experience. Maybe I can’t solve a Rubic’s cube as fast as someone else, but I can love my mother as deeply, or suffer injury as badly. How can that not factor into the face value of our respective lives? Or, more to the point, how can it factor into it at all? The mere fact of consciousness puts all human life on an equal footing.

But if you love your mother it’s only because something in your genes makes it more likely that you will survive if you love your mother. That is what the totality of your life is reduced to you you want to be consistent. How do Darwinians explain consciousness anyway?

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).

George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,
The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became a blank.
In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).

But they are all pretenders, right

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM

He did indeed. He wanted to promote his own race, over those of others under his control. Part of that desire, included the elimination of of those whom he thought sub-standard – including among his own race. He used racism to help achieve those ends.

I guess my point is that Hitlerism was a system too complicated to use as a reference to simple racism.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 12:21 PM

The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be ‘servants of servants,’ that is ‘servants extraordinary!’ Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham’s family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham’s descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth’s ‘colored’ races,–yellow, red, brown, and black–essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians–are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.

The Hamites have been the great ‘servants’ of mankind in the following ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans, cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types of structural forms and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce and trade–money, banks, postal systems, etc.–were invented by them; (8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, movable type, and other accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people. Truly they have been the ‘servants’ of mankind in a most amazing way.

Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.

Henry Morris, The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991)

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Racism is as old as the hills. As is slavery.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:15 PM

Mrs. P. A. Taylor, of the Ladies London Emancipation Society, said of Huxley,

He believes in the doctrine of freedom, or equal personal rights for all men, and he pronounces the system of slavery to be root and branch an abomination — thus making his physiological definition of the Negro’s place among men equivalent to an earnest plea for Negro emancipation. Nay, as will have been noted, be goes farther, and, in virtue of the strength of his feeling with respect to slavery, avows a state of opinion regarding the American War in which many who share his feeling with respect to slavery will refuse to go along with him (Taylor 1864).

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Mrs. P. A. Taylor, of the Ladies London Emancipation Society, said of Huxley

and your point with her is??? odds are she is from a CHRISTIAN society….

atheists and darwinists aren’t too interested in freedom…especially for ‘lower races’

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Henry Morris, The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991)

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 12:24 PM

another typical darwiniac tactic…point out the supposed sins of creationists…

well since you can’t defend your hairygod or his racist theory, guess its the best you can do….

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:54 PM

we have huxley’s OWN WORDS…and you try to defend him with who???? laughable…..

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:55 PM

…the materialist purposelessness of a godless universe may quite logically lead one to an extreme racialist position.

But it generally doesn’t. Biology departments aren’t exactly hotbeds of racial tension. Here in the U.S., you mostly find that kind of thing in the bible belt.

Christianity says that all people have worth and were created in God’s image. Liberalism says that racial differences (mental and physical) do not exist and any disparate outcomes of success and failure are the fault of white racism, colonialism and discrimination. But if one is neither a Chritian nor a liberal then there is no philosophical brake on one’s definition of fully human or sub-human.

Well, I already gave you my philosophical brake, and I’m neither liberal (no, seriously, I’m not) nor Christian. I reject the idea that philosophy is even necessary to treat people’s lives with respect. The benefits are obvious to everyone who has ever tried it.

Well one could argue that if one accepts the arbitrariness of Darwinian materialism.

I’m not sure how you differentiate materialism from Darwinian materialism, so I might not be addressing your point, but I think it’s less arbitrary to assume a natural history life rather than to assume a cosmic sandbox for an unknowable God.

But if you love your mother it’s only because something in your genes makes it more likely that you will survive if you love your mother. That is what the totality of your life is reduced to you you want to be consistent. How do Darwinians explain consciousness anyway?

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Maybe I love my mother because she’s an interesting person and she treated me well when I was growing up. Seriously, you’ve never met my mom. She’s a cool lady. The ability to process that kind of emotion in the first place might be nothing more than a lucky genetic guess, but that doesn’t detract from its sincerity. Meaning can exist apart from history.

“Darwinian” is kind of an anachronism. I think it refers to a strict version of evolution that only admits natural selection. I’m not sure if you mean it in that sense, or in the more general sense of evolutionary theory in its modern form. Either way, I think it’s fair to say no one has a conclusive scientific theory of how consciousness is even possible. Theologists have the luxury of saying something like, “because God loves us,” but that strikes me as a pretty vacuous way of explaining things.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM

But it generally doesn’t. Biology departments aren’t exactly hotbeds of racial tension. Here in the U.S., you mostly find that kind of thing in the bible belt.

typical darwiniac BS…I’m married to a black lady…you??? oh yeah bet you have lots of black friends…you lying piece of trash.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:59 PM

. Theologists have the luxury of saying something like, “because God loves us,” but that strikes me as a pretty vacuous way of explaining things.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM

as opposed to darwiniacs saying ‘it evolved because evolution is true’

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:00 PM

“…natural history of life,” that is.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 1:01 PM

and yes the libs that inhabit the biology departments and other areas of academe are mostly left-wing pompous condescending racists who don’t think black people, or any people of color can make it with out ‘bwanas’ help…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:01 PM

I always remember the reaction of those good libs in Boston to bussing…the riots, the hatred..oh yeah…not exactly the bible belt…moron.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:03 PM

I see the usual suspects are making trouble again.

But that’s neither here nor there.

I’ve never personally understood the notion of charity to conflict with man’s self-interest: as long as its not forced, that is. If it makes you happy to go down to a soup kitchen and work on Christmas, if you get that high out of it . . . just what the heck is the problem with a little altruism. Someone should remove that stick from where Brook has had it placed for years.

Ryan Gandy on September 13, 2009 at 1:03 PM

typical darwiniac BS…I’m married to a black lady…you??? oh yeah bet you have lots of black friends…you lying piece of trash.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:59 PM

What did I lie about, sunshine?

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 1:07 PM

pretty much everything…but in this case your BS that racism is mostly in the bible belt…

jacka**

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM

so tell me about all your black ‘friends’…this should be good…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM

you sound like a typical liberal wacko…no surprise given you’re a darwiniac.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:10 PM

Ayn Rand? Are you serious?

AYN RAND WAS A DOCUMENTED SATANIST.

ALMOST THE ENTIRE SATANIC BIBLE IS DIRECT AYN RAND QUOTATIONS.

Only atheists are so stupid that they did not know this and fall for these same types crap evey single time.

That’s what happens when you are totally ignorant of history and reality and are just desperately clinging to the totally illogical “atheistic” philosophy in order to attempt to justify your actions and pretend you will not be held accountable for them.

MaximusConfessor on September 13, 2009 at 1:21 PM

pretty much everything…but in this case your BS that racism is mostly in the bible belt…

jacka**

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:08 PM

Let me clarify something, because I made used a hatchet instead of a scalpel — most people in bible belt are decent people willing to look past racial differences. That’s true of most places. But history supports me here. MLK Jr. was killed in Memphis. George Wallace stood in front of a classroom in Alabama. The three-fifths compromise was meant to appease the Southern states. The church bombings, the confederate flags, the dixiecrats, Robert Byrd — none of that crap happened in biology labs. It happened in the bible belt. Sorry. If it makes you feel any better (and I don’t see why it should) it’s as much my history as yours as an American.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM

The three-fifths compromise was meant to appease the Southern states. The church bombings, the confederate flags, the dixiecrats, Robert Byrd — none of that crap happened in biology labs. It happened in the bible belt. Sorry. If it makes you feel any better (and I don’t see why it should) it’s as much my history as yours as an American.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 1:22 PM

oh please…lets look at the liberal progressive racism of the past 100 years or so…since DARWIN…Wilson was a racist…sanger, and the ‘negro project’

Byrd, and the rest of the democrats are PROGESSIVES…ie libs…get a clue…moron.

but of course none all of this is just a smokescreen from a typical darwiniac desperate to defend their precious little theory…racism is IMPLICIT in evolution…and all your little smarmy liberal diversion tactics are meaningless…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:26 PM

MaximusConfessor on September 13, 2009 at 1:21 PM

So what? One fairy tale is as valid as another.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:26 PM

That, and Boston – in Massachusetts, one of the bluest states there is – is full of drunk Irish skinheads! Lol.

Ryan Gandy on September 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM

remember hillary saying what a hero Sanger is to her recently????

hmmm?? sanger was a racist eugenicist…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:28 PM

That, and Boston – in Massachusetts, one of the bluest states there is – is full of drunk Irish skinheads! Lol.

Ryan Gandy on September 13, 2009 at 1:27 PM

very true…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:29 PM

another typical darwiniac tactic…point out the supposed sins of creationists…

well since you can’t defend your hairygod or his racist theory, guess its the best you can do….

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 12:54 PM

So you can bring out racist quotes by darwinists but racist quote by creationists are verboten? Sounds like a vertain president I know.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 1:30 PM

So you can bring out racist quotes by darwinists but racist quote by creationists are verboten? Sounds like a vertain president I know.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 1:30 PM

no put em out there…its fine…its rather amusing actually…yeah hitler was a creationist!!! sure….

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM

and explain to me how creationism was behind the eugenics movement…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:32 PM

AYN RAND WAS A DOCUMENTED SATANIST.

ALMOST THE ENTIRE SATANIC BIBLE IS DIRECT AYN RAND QUOTATIONS.

That is probably because Laveyan Satanism is not the religious worship of Satan but an atheistic mocking of religion.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 1:33 PM

But it generally doesn’t. Biology departments aren’t exactly hotbeds of racial tension.

No but I’m speaking of the philosophical potentiality of such a belief gaining ground if Darwinism is true. It doesn’t need to be actual biologists who come up with it.

I reject the idea that philosophy is even necessary to treat people’s lives with respect.

It’s not necessary for treating people with dignity but people may come up with philosophical systems that justify cruelty that can comfortably co-exist with Darwin’s understanding of the struggle for existence. How are we to refute them?

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM

no put em out there…its fine…its rather amusing actually…yeah hitler was a creationist!!! sure….

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM

I never said anything of the sort.

Point is, Mr. Obama, that when a racist uses evolution to justify their crap, it is somehow proof that modern evolutionary theory is racist.

When a creationist does the same thing, somehow I am trying to distract the Issue.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Point is, Mr. Obama, that when a racist uses evolution to justify their crap, it is somehow proof that modern evolutionary theory is racist.

When a creationist does the same thing, somehow I am trying to distract the Issue.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM

again you twist what I have said…it really doesn’t matter if huxley was a racist, or even darwin…who cares??

the point is that evolution is implicity racist…for the reasons we have went over ad nauseam…even supporters like OE admit it…and its true…

one race HAS to be more FIT than another…there is no equality of people in darwinism…sorry…deal with it.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:26 PM

Do you think maybe I used an example of a liberal with a history of racism on purpose? Hmm. Relax. There’s plenty of racism to go around. Even in biology labs (Tuskugee experiments, for example).

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM

It’s not necessary for treating people with dignity but people may come up with philosophical systems that justify cruelty that can comfortably co-exist with Darwin’s understanding of the struggle for existence. How are we to refute them?

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Wouldn’t that be a case of people simply abusing science for their own purposes? It wouldn’t invalidate the science.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM

and the other point is that even if creationism is racist…so what? how many people have died as the result of racist creationism??? probably not many…

especially compared to the MILLIONS that have died in the darinist-inspired eugenics movement…

did you notice the recent quote from justice ginsberg, about the reason for abortion???

don’t think its still around?? look at obama’s science czar…

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:40 PM

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Not to confuse correlation with causation, but you have to admit, we’re a heck of a lot better off in terms of racial equality 150 years after Darwin than at any time in human history.

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Wouldn’t that be a case of people simply abusing science for their own purposes? It wouldn’t invalidate the science.

OldEnglish on September 13, 2009 at 1:39 PM

No it wouldn’t invalidate the science but it would not be an abuse of that science insofar as you would not need to change anything about the theory to justify trampling over one’s lessers.

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM

one race HAS to be more FIT than another…there is no equality of people in darwinism…sorry…deal with it.

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 1:38 PM

One person is more fit than others for some things.

You frothing desire to “prove” evolution is racist shows a lack of knowledge on the actual theory. Race is not even considered to be a valid construct in modern biology, as I have explained ad nauseum. If race does not exist, each individual organism has advantages over the other. It just depends on what advantage will allow them to suceed most often in their environment. Just as a hound can smell better but is not as fast as a greyhound.

Squid Shark on September 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM

right4life on September 13, 2009 at 8:55 AM

You are believing a lie dude. Indigenous religious sites in the New World and the Old World survive despite the attempts to destroy them. This is why countless churches lay on what were Pagan holy grounds, both in Europe and the New World.

The only reason why any knowledge exists of the Religion of the Germans or Celts is because you Christians weren’t thorough enough and because a few good souls decided it was wrong to destroy it, thus they archived it.

Christians didn’t destroy the Pyramids at Giza because the Egyptians built big. But they did try to destroy the Parthenon.

Holger on September 13, 2009 at 1:54 PM

It’s not necessary for treating people with dignity but people may come up with philosophical systems that justify cruelty that can comfortably co-exist with Darwin’s understanding of the struggle for existence. How are we to refute them?

aengus on September 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM

Sorry, I should’ve answered your question. First, with a question — how are we to refute the Islamic radicals that justify their cruelty as the will of God? If God is the ultimate source of morality, it doesn’t do us a lot of good unless he shows up to clarify a few things for us.

We can show historical examples of the suffering that social Darwinism has caused. From there, it’s just a matter of accepting that suffering is bad (which seems to be a feature of the universe as much as a philosophical postulate).

RightOFLeft on September 13, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 … 4 5 6 7