Darwinist Hall Of Shame - The Eugenicists Wing! Charles (and his family) Darwin made Atheism and Racism and Genocide respectable!
One could take a month just to write about all the damage Charles Darwin has done to society. His so-called theory (which is now just a widely-accepted fractured fairy tale) has done more damage to the world than the Black Death. Darwinism has led to more deaths, if you include the Darwin-inspired genocides of the late 19th and the 20th Century and the worldwide baby-murdering, not to mention the millions of Africans who've died of malaria by being denied the life-saving benefits of DDT. There are spokes coming from Darwin leading to death and disease and ignorance pointing in every direction. Thanks to Jonathan Sarfati and Andrew Kulikovsky and Don Batten for pointing out several articles from Creation.com, today by Russell Grigg and Bill Muehlenberg. If you see anything in this series from Creation.com, it was suggested by one of those gentlemen and I am thankful for the input!
But we will discuss Eugenics now. Charles Darwin's work was the key component to the idea of Eugenics - an excuse for racism and genocide:
While more sober minds see a clear line between Darwin’s ideas and many of the horrible social experiments of the twentieth century, including Nazism, defenders of Darwin argue that at best there is no connection, or at worst any such episodes are aberrations or perversions of what Darwin believed.
But is that the case? Most people are not even aware of the full title of his 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual. (Radar note: My copy of this tome includes the full title and it was a turn-of-the-19th-to-20th-Century publication. It isn't like Darwin and his publishers had any qualms about the implications as the 20th Century started. Just consider the blatant racism of Woodrow Wilson and the widespread popularity of Hitler amongst American liberal elites in the 1930's!)
A very interesting article appeared lately in the decidedly liberal religious journal Commonweal, taking on this notion of the ‘gentle Darwin’. The anti-creationist Peter Quinn argues in that Darwin was not quite so squeaky clean when it comes to dangerous social implications of his theory.
Ideas have bad consequences, and Darwin had his fair share of them.
 |
| International Eugenics Conference Logo (public domain) |
But we will discuss Eugenics now. Charles Darwin's work was the key component to the idea of Eugenics - an excuse for racism and genocide:
Darwin and eugenics
Darwin was indeed a ‘Social Darwinist’
Poor old Darwin. So misunderstood by his followers. He was actually a nice old chap with fairly tame ideas, but his extremist disciples took his thoughts a bit too far. At least that is the spin being put out by many Darwinists and atheists today.While more sober minds see a clear line between Darwin’s ideas and many of the horrible social experiments of the twentieth century, including Nazism, defenders of Darwin argue that at best there is no connection, or at worst any such episodes are aberrations or perversions of what Darwin believed.
But is that the case? Most people are not even aware of the full title of his 1859 masterwork: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. That last half of the title, often overlooked, sounds like it could come straight out of a Ku Klux Klan manual. (Radar note: My copy of this tome includes the full title and it was a turn-of-the-19th-to-20th-Century publication. It isn't like Darwin and his publishers had any qualms about the implications as the 20th Century started. Just consider the blatant racism of Woodrow Wilson and the widespread popularity of Hitler amongst American liberal elites in the 1930's!)
A very interesting article appeared lately in the decidedly liberal religious journal Commonweal, taking on this notion of the ‘gentle Darwin’. The anti-creationist Peter Quinn argues in that Darwin was not quite so squeaky clean when it comes to dangerous social implications of his theory.
Ideas have bad consequences, and Darwin had his fair share of them.
You can read the rest at this link.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No doubt Darwinists will throw out their famous "Godwin's Law" but that is a coward's way out of a discussion. There is no questioning the link between Darwin and Eugenics and organized racism on a national scale. Darwin made racism and Atheism socially acceptable among elites and certainly, at a time when Christians were getting slavery eradicated in the Western World, Darwinist were promoting the other side of the coin.
With Darwinism as an excuse, people of color were killed and stuffed, or jailed in zoo exhibits or led around like animals to be displayed. Western society had an excuse for racism and well over 100 million (no one knows for sure how much more. 140 million? 160 million?) people of color or people with disabilities and people of different heritage like Jews, for instance, were slaughtered by Fascist and Communist governments. Then there were the tens of thousands that were sterilized and subjected to terrible experiments. Nazis, Communists, European royals, Americans...the list of the death-dealers is long and shameful.
Charles Darwin certainly learned hypocrisy from his father and was inspired to find a way to fight against God and creation by his grandfather, Erasmus.
As we have often pointed out, evolutionists do not have any facts that are unavailable to creationists—it is how these facts are interpreted that is significant, and it is ideology which largely determines the interpretation. Charles Darwin himself said, ‘How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!’2
So we need to carefully consider the influences on Darwin’s mindset before he set out aboard the Beagle on his round-the-world trip in 1831. The key to understanding how he was predisposed to interpreting facts in favour of an evolutionary ideology goes back to the beliefs, writings and role model of his grandfather, Erasmus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No doubt Darwinists will throw out their famous "Godwin's Law" but that is a coward's way out of a discussion. There is no questioning the link between Darwin and Eugenics and organized racism on a national scale. Darwin made racism and Atheism socially acceptable among elites and certainly, at a time when Christians were getting slavery eradicated in the Western World, Darwinist were promoting the other side of the coin.
With Darwinism as an excuse, people of color were killed and stuffed, or jailed in zoo exhibits or led around like animals to be displayed. Western society had an excuse for racism and well over 100 million (no one knows for sure how much more. 140 million? 160 million?) people of color or people with disabilities and people of different heritage like Jews, for instance, were slaughtered by Fascist and Communist governments. Then there were the tens of thousands that were sterilized and subjected to terrible experiments. Nazis, Communists, European royals, Americans...the list of the death-dealers is long and shameful.
Charles Darwin certainly learned hypocrisy from his father and was inspired to find a way to fight against God and creation by his grandfather, Erasmus.
Darwinism: it was all in the family
Erasmus Darwin’s famous grandson learned early about evolution.
Many people erroneously think that Charles Darwin (who earned a degree in theology) was once blissfully content with the biblical explanation of origins—until, that is, as an unbiased naturalist, he stumbled across the idea of evolution by observing the ‘facts of nature’ in the Galápagos Islands in 1835. The truth is significantly otherwise. The concept of evolution had, in fact, been ‘in his family’ ever since his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, first suggested it in 1770.1As we have often pointed out, evolutionists do not have any facts that are unavailable to creationists—it is how these facts are interpreted that is significant, and it is ideology which largely determines the interpretation. Charles Darwin himself said, ‘How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!’2
So we need to carefully consider the influences on Darwin’s mindset before he set out aboard the Beagle on his round-the-world trip in 1831. The key to understanding how he was predisposed to interpreting facts in favour of an evolutionary ideology goes back to the beliefs, writings and role model of his grandfather, Erasmus.
You can finish reading the article here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually researching Darwin's path to publishing his first book reveals a few telling details. First of all, Wallace's treatise on evolution was already presented and Darwin feared that, if he did not publish his own book, Wallace would beat him to the punch. Second, Blyth had come up with the idea of natural selection as part of the design of the God-created organism. Darwin stole that idea. In fact, he took ideas from a few other men without regard to intellectual property. Jerry Bergman's article details this fact.
Darwin actually worried over how to promote the concept of evolution. What means could he provide to power his pet hypothesis? The idea that Finch beaks inspired him is more myth than fact. Darwin didn't even realize all those birds were Finches until he brought them back from Galapagos and got some input from other naturalists. Ironically, Kirschner and Gerhart showed that Finch beaks are designed to be able to switch rapidly from long to short, from narrow to thick and this is a process controlled by the cell. Darwin's supposed inspiration actually flies in the face of Darwinism. Anyway, he mulled over various means to accomplish evolution, including Lamarckism, before reading work by Blyth and Wallace caused him to settle on mutation and natural selection. Now we know that mutation is deleterious to organisms and natural selection was a design feature of organisms so that kinds of organisms could adjust to various ecological contingencies.
Darwin was wrong in so many ways, but his publications laid the framework for organized and politically correct racism and genocide and segregation. Eugenics was born in Darwinism. The next post will explore other villains in the process of Eugenics. We have to lay the foundational blame at the feet of Charles Darwin and the influence of his grandfather, Erasmus. The tragedy is that these men, very smart guys, could have done so much good rather than have been the spark that lit a fire of destruction and ignorance and death that has blazed through the decades and still burns hot today.
A some closing thoughts from Sir Francis Bacon (the man who formulated the real scientific method, which is free of naturalism) from Goodreads.com:
“A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion.”
― Francis Bacon
― Francis Bacon
“God has, in fact, written two books, not just one. Of course, we are all familiar with the first book he wrote, namely Scripture. But he has written a second book called creation.”
― Francis Bacon
― Francis Bacon