The Instigator
jmlandf
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
holyyakker
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

The Theory of Evolution is Racism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/7/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,973 times Debate No: 5301
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (87)
Votes (10)

 

jmlandf

Pro

I Affirm: Evolutionary Theory is Racism. Those who subscribe to evolutions conclusions must accept they are a racist.

Definitions
Racism: The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
http://education.yahoo.com...
http://dictionary.reference.com...

Evolutionary Theory: evolution;theory of evolution; macroevolution; Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Contention 1
The Logical conclusion of Evolutionary Theory equates to Racism.

Natural Selection allows the most evolved or "favoured" race to succeed in the natural environment. Logically speaking some species and sub-species (race) are actively evolving and competing with one another. Some animals are superior to other animals. Logically everyone must accept that some animals are superior to other animals in a given environment. Further you must accept that some animals with in a species are superior to others with in the species. This contention doesn't intend to place importance on which race is superior just that the logical conclusion of Evolutionary Theory suggest one sub-species (race) can be superior to another in a given environment. You must accept this as FACT if you subscribe to Evolutionary Theory because it is a foundation and necessary requirement for evolution to occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Contention 2
Spokesmen and adamant supporters of Evolutionary Theory were racist.

Racism is a belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. A racist is anyone who agrees with this, that doesn't mean the racist will act on their belief. For example Darwin was a racist but he was against slavery for one particular individual. I suppose one could argue this makes his racism more commendable but by definition he is still a racist. One could argue the below quotes don't speak for the whole of those who subscribe to Evolutionary Theory, however I would like to point out that the below quotes are simply a logically correct application of the Theory of Evolution. The below individuals may be in error as to which race is superior but they are not in error in believing that Evolutionary Theory supports superior races.

Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes [sic] are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro [sic] is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man....The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins...." (I "siced" the above places not because he used the term, negro but because he did not capitalize it.)

Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that blacks had not evolved as far as whites and "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be."

Darwin claimed that the "fight for survival" also applied between human races. "Favored races" emerged victorious from this struggle. According to Darwin the favored race were the European whites. As for Asian and African races, they had fallen behind in the fight for survival.
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Reference Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178

Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, declared, "The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters. such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens."

"Looking to the world at no distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world", Charles Darwin, Letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881

Contention 3
Failed political beliefs for racial cleansing, such as the Nazis, were based on Evolution.

Most will argue that Hitler incorrectly applied Evolutionary Theory and he certainly did have mixed up science, however his application that some races are superior to other races is a correct interpretation of Evolutionary Theory logic. Unfortunately the only argument one can make against Hitler's genocide in the realm of evolutionary theory is that he was wrong about which races were superior opposed to "no races are superior."; Evolution can not make such a claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
holyyakker

Con

My opponent defines racism as the belief that race accounts for difference in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. This definition must be taken as a whole to be accurate. It is not merely safe to say that belief that race accounts for differences in human character is racism. It is a known fact that members of particular races such as African Americans and Asians are more likely to be lactose intolerant. It is also a medically proven fact that certain diseases are more prevalent in certain races. The same genetic difference that makes African Americans more prone to sickle-cell anemia also prevents them from contracting malaria. Different racial characteristics can be as obvious as skin tone; therefore, the first part of the definition provided is not sufficient.

The second part of my opponent's definition is key, the belief that a particular race is superior to others because of these believed differences. My opponent defines Evolution as the process of natural selection, where desirable genetic traits pass on to successive generations and as a result, the species slowly evolves to contain these genetic traits. He then argues that belief in the existence of these genetic traits implies belief that one group of people is superior to another, and if one group is superior to another then it is a racist belief.

However, there are several problems with this line of argument. First is that the view of superiority is far too narrowly construed. A trait that may make one group of people superior in one climate does not make them superior in another climate. In areas of the globe with higher levels of solar radiation and direct sunlight, the human body adapted by developing a darker pigment to the skin, this trait is a superior trait in those climates, but are not superior in other regions of the world. Likewise, in colder climates, thicker hair was a superior trait as it protected the body from cold and thus it became more prevalent.

Another flaw in my opponents argument is that is assumes desirable genetic traits exist only along racial divides. This is clearly not the case. In the early Middle Ages where disease was widespread due to poor sanitation people with weaker immune systems were less likely to live to an age to procreate. As a result, the children of each successive generation were more likely to exhibit the traits of their parents, in this case a more hearty immune system. In times when food was scarce society considered full figured women more attractive than slighter women as their shape was a sign of health and fuller hips resulted in fewer complications during childbirth. As a result, more children were born with these genetic characteristics. These traits existed within racial groups, not between them. This further highlights how race is not a factor in the Theory of Evolution.

Finally, the final two contentions of my opponent fall clearly into one of the most several fallacies of logic, the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is committed by attacking the origin of the argument rather than the argument itself (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Stating that people with racist beliefs and intentions supported an idea does not make the idea inherently racist. Racist claims made by the Nazi party and by other Eugenic movements were not based on empirical scientific evidence; rather they attempted to rationalize their beliefs of racial superiority through use of a scientific theory. This was a poor argument on their part, but the does not invalidate the Theory of Evolution.

In conclusion, in order to attest that the Theory of Evolution is a racist theory one would have to assume that desirable genetic traits that would be passed on through natural selection exist solely within one race. Additionally you would have to assume that the existence of specific racial traits make one race superior in all climates rather than in a particular climate or geographical area. The Theory of Evolution merely claims that difference exist and that genetic traits that are more desirable will be passed on to successive generations. It does not explicitly or inferentially claim that these traits in any way make one particular race superior to another.
Debate Round No. 1
jmlandf

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate and his quick response.

My opponent is attempting to discredit my definition of Racism. I would like to remind my opponent that it is not my definition but rather it is The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Definition.
If my opponent has issue with the definition perhaps he should take issue with the publisher. Further the definition of Character and Ability is not merely physical as you have suggested. Citing mere physical differences between races misses the point entirely and of course you have to take the definition as a whole to be accurate, I never suggested you shouldn't.

My opponent is correct in saying that different races have different physical traits, however evolution takes it to the next level in that the superior traits will cause the species to evolve to a more superior species. You see evolution suggest that Microevolution, small changes with in species, will eventually with time lead to macroevolution. Now my opponent has listed several microevolution changes which are observable, this in it self is not racist because the changes stay with in a species and we always have equality as the same species, when you throw in Evolutionary Theory however you look at things entirely different. You accept that a new species will evolve and the species that don't evolve are now something less. You now have the potential for lets say White man to become a new species and Black man to continue his human species or simply that a White man is further up the Evolutionary ladder. You now have a break with two separate species, which could be paralleled with Ape and Man. I of course don't mean to encourage black/white racism I'm simply using this argument for illustrative purposes. Evolutionist don't believe ape came from man, they believe man came from ape and with that understanding the new species to evolve won't be from Africans. Why? Well there is enormous scientific evidence and myocardial dna proves that man was originally black in Africa. I see white skin as a negative genetic mutation that can be lived with and a lot of sunscreen! Of course Evolutionist sees it as an adaptation. This is an obvious racist belief on the part of Evolutionist. Primate to Black Man to White Man to New Future Species? This is no doubt how many evolutionist have viewed the future events of evolution and that is racist. That is why if you accept Evolution you must accept your own racism.

I would like to note a few flaws, though they don't matter much, in my opponents examples of thick hair growth in cold regions. This may be true to some degree just by happenstance, however the Eskimos have very thin hair and don't/can't typically grow facial hair.

My last 2 contentions are not a genetic fallacy. I think this is simply a side step on behalf of my opponent.

DEFINITION Genetic Fallacy; is a conclusion that is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation.

My last 2 contentions are not genetic fallacy's because they still apply to the CURRENT MEANING and CONTEXT of The Theory of Evolution. I have demonstrated the logical current context of The Theory of Evolution in my first contention.
holyyakker

Con

I did not say that my opponent's definition was inaccurate, just that we must understand that for a thought to be racist it must include both elements. There must be the belief that there are differences in characteristics and that these characteristics lead towards superiority. While the definition provided is accurate there are several others that better define the phenomenon. For a few examples:

A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. (Random House Unabridged)

The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. ("racism." WordNet� 3.0. Princeton University. 08 Sep. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com...;)

The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them. In the United States, racism, particularly by whites against blacks, has created profound racial tension and conflict in virtually all aspects of American society. Until the breakthroughs achieved by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, white domination over blacks was institutionalized and supported in all branches and levels of government, by denying blacks their civil rights and opportunities to participate in political, economic, and social communities. ("racism." The American Heritage� New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 08 Sep. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com...;.)

A characteristic present in each one of these definitions is the belief of total superiority or intrinsic superiority based on mere belief and not fact. Again, as my opponent concedes, the definition of superiority in racism extends beyond physical characteristics, as both character and ability are not merely physical manifestations. This further shows the weakness of the argument against evolution. Genetic evolution merely concerns itself with genetically inheritable traits. It does not make assumptions about culture and character that exist beyond the spectrum of genetics.

Furthermore, my opponent claims that man was originally dark skinned and as they left Africa and migrated into north the skin color lightened. He would claim that these changes made this new man superior and the next step up the evolutionary chart, however it is not the claim of evolution that this new lighter skinned man was ‘superior' in all ways to the darker skinned man. Merely that they possessed genetic traits that were found to be desirable. Additionally, as man continued north it became unnecessary for him to have the darker skin, so this unneeded trait lessened. Likewise, the trait that led to sickle-cell anemia was bred out of the population as people with sickle-cell were more likely to die to it where as in areas still plagued by malaria sickle-cell was less of the concern than malaria and those who were immune or resistant to malaria were more likely to live. Again, to reiterate, my opponent claims that seeing white skin as an adaptation is obviously racist, but it in no way implies superiority of a race or sub group of the species human, it merely states that different groups possess different traits to best suit their survival in a given climate at a given time.

The narrow view as Evolutionary Theory as a mere ladder that goes in one direction is also a misrepresentation. According to evolutionary theory the same group of animals left in two different climates with two different sets of evolutionary pressures may evolve in two very distinctive ways eventually becoming two distinctly different species. This does not mean that one group is superior to another, in fact if both groups were uprooted and placed into a third environment it is impossible to predict which group would thrive as it would be a function of their existing traits and how well they are adapted for the third climate.

As a brief point of clarification, the lack of facial hair among the Native Americans ranging from Alaska down into South America is believed to occur because they are, evolutionarily speaking, recent transfers to these new climates. Evolutionary changes are extremely slow, this is also why the White colonists in South Africa and India did not undergo any evolutionary changes during their short time there.

Finally, my opponent claims that his last two arguments from round one are not the genetic fallacy. However it is a classic textbook example. To quote from "Reasoning and Writing, From Critical Thinking to Composition" by Donald L. Hatcher and L. Anne Spencer: "The genetic fallacy is committed when one attacks a position by attacking the origin or genesis of the argument. … [An] example of this type of fallacy occurs when capitalists attack Marx's arguments against capitalism by pointing out that Marx himself lived off the money provided by his wealthy friend Friedrich Engles. Whether … Marxism is a reasonable position has nothing to do with the lives of those who present the ideas." This exact same type of attack is the one leveled by my opponent. By claiming people with clear racist agendas used the Theory of Evolution incorrectly to support their argument he is attacking the theory based on the beliefs and lives of the groups of people who practiced these racist thoughts, not on the merits or flaws of the theory of Evolution.
Debate Round No. 2
jmlandf

Pro

Well I would like to thank my opponent for the additional definitions of Racism and Racist for the Debate audience. The definitions certainly apply and add a little more depth to the ugliness of Racism, however I would like to add that my contentions are unaffected by the more detailed definitions.

I would like to clarify some things. I should have not assumed everyone was on the same page with the definition of Race, though my opponent certainly appears to understand the below definition. Note: It is not purely a difference in skin pigmentation or "always" pertaining to geographic location in modern history.
Definition(s) of Race;
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
3. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution:
http://education.yahoo.com...

The Logical conclusion of Evolutionary Theory equates to Racism.......AS opposed to other "Existence Theories"
I don't believe my opponent has rebuttal this contention. I would like to offer some hope for those that see the logic in Evolutionary Theory as it pertains to racism. There are other acceptable Theories, though many are not as readily accepted by the scientific community. A case in point would be Intelligent Design or Creationism. This Theory would certainly assume the obvious differences in humans, however it does not suggest a possible change in species, so it can not be counted as racism. The defining difference between existence theories is Evolutionary Theory claims a species change can occur. Why is this important? A good example is mankind's views on dogs. Dogs do not have equal rights with humans. An Intelligent Design subscriber can justify this with morals derived from the Deity he/she accepts. Evolutionary Theory subscribers, however, can only justify their right to rule over the dog with the belief they are simply more evolved. I understand some individuals can subscribe to Evolutionary Theory and a Deity, though I would argue that the two beliefs are generally in conflict with each other, so I will now move on.

Evolutionary Theory itself claims natural causation of existence. A dog can exercise his dominion over a rabbit. A dog can exercise its rule over a weaker or less intelligent dog with-out natural government. Taking this natural logic one would understand that a man with a higher aptitude or evolution can exercise his dominion over the weaker or less evolved. Intelligent Design would suggest that all men have rights endowed by the Creator, while as evolution suggest rights are only endowed by the more evolved. This is the natural logic that most individuals with a significant understanding of Evolutionary Theory have used to arrive at very racial views. I contend that those familiar with Evolutionary Theory and don't publicly proclaim to be Racist simply do so to avoid conflict with society and mankind's government. This is why my last two contentions are not a Genetic Fallacy.

Example of a genetic fallacy
From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 36:
'["You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice." There may be reasons why people may not wish to wear wedding rings, but it would be logically inappropriate for a couple to reject the notion of exchanging wedding rings on the sole grounds of its alleged sexist origins.]'

Well first let me say this about genetic fallacy....it is generally an argument against ignorance. In the above example, while the individual doesn't wear a wedding ring for the original intent wedding rings were worn, they are usually ignorant of the history. None the less the example is a genetic fallacy because the reason they choose to wear wedding rings has nothing to do with its past history.

If I changed the argument and said
"You believe men are better than women and men have a right to do whatever they want to women. Why do you subscribe to that sexist belief?"

The above is not a genetic fallacy because the man in the example DOES subscribe to the belief while as the other argument was simply attacking wearing wedding rings, not the sexist belief. Evolutionary Theory is a belief system, you can choose to accept it or deny it.

My opponent offers the below example of a genetic fallacy
[An] example of this type of fallacy occurs when capitalists attack Marx's arguments against capitalism by pointing out that Marx himself lived off the money provided by his wealthy friend Friedrich Engles. Whether … Marxism is a reasonable position has nothing to do with the lives of those who present the ideas."

The above is a genetic fallacy, however if the capitalist argument was when you take Marxism and apply its principles it will lead to economic failure, it is no longer a genetic fallacy. My debate suggest if you take Evolutionary Theory and all it claims to be you ultimately have justification for racism, which is not a genetic fallacy. The quotes I presented the debate audience, from prominent Evolutionist, were simply their practical understanding of Evolutionary Theory. Cause .... Effect.
holyyakker

Con

Just to settle the matter of genetic fallacy – I am not suggesting that my opponent's entire argument, that the Theory of Evolution is racist, is a genetic fallacy. The fallacy exists in his allusion that its use by extremist groups, such as a Nazi regime under Hitler and the eugenics movement, makes it inherently racist. The quote provided were not a reflection of understanding; they were racist propaganda provided by politically motivated groups. Hitler's argument that Evolution states that some races are superior, the same argument my opponent now makes, is based on a flawed and politically motivated understanding of evolutionary theory.

Again, while my opponent makes broad statements about the implications of evolutionary pressures on a dog he ignores the larger issue. A dog that is adapted and genetically superior for one particular climate or environment is not well adapted for all such climates. As a result, the canine world is a perfect example; there is a vast spectrum of sub-species of dogs. Each sub-species is well adapted for its environment but may not be so well adapted for a different environment. Evolutionary theory does not declare one sub-species of dog, or man, superior. Dominance and social interactions between dogs, as with people, is not the domain of evolutionary theory.

My opponent has decided to interject an irrelevant and previously unmentioned topic into his final round of debate, the existence of other competing theories on the origins of life. Our debate is not which theory for explaining the biodiversity of our planet has greater scientific merit or is more morally acceptable by society. If my opponent wishes to debate this later, he may challenge me to such a debate, however that is not the topic here.

The only argument my opponent has made is that advocates for Evolution are all truly racist and lie about this fact to avoid social conflict. His argument is that "most individuals with a significant understanding of Evolutionary Theory have used it to arrive at very [racist] views." However, he provides no sources to justify this argument. There is no evidence of a majority of people who subscribe to Evolutionary Theory, essentially all of the established scientific community of our modern society, harboring racist agendas. As evidence he offers the fact that known racist groups and known racists have attempted to justify their racism with science, but similar groups such as the KKK have attempted to justify their racist propaganda with religious arguments – are we therefore to assume that Christianity is therefore racist? No, this argument, like the one my opponent is faulty and based on attacking the actions of group that adopt a philosophy on the philosophy itself on the basis of logic.

I would offer as a counter argument that only those who have an extremely narrow understanding of the Theory of Evolution could arrive at the notion that it is a racist theory. The Theory of Evolution does not at all imply superiority of sub-sequent species. In fact, modern Evolutionary Theory documents a multitude of ways in which a previous species and its descendants may interact. Many of these interactions are symbiotic, some do not interact at all, sometimes an older species dies out, but this is not because the new species is superior. Evolutionary theory also documents the types of things that bring about genetic change; some occurs naturally as a part of genetic drift, others occur when something divides a population (such as the melting of the Bering Ice Bridge), some occur when a population enters a new habitat that is isolated or removed, and some occur when a species enters an adjacent habitat. Sometimes a population interbreeds with this new mutation or change spreads throughout the entire population, other times this change enters into an isolated section of the population resulting in two entirely separate sub-species. Again, an insightful reader will notice that there is no mention of superiority of species. In fact, it is again not in Evolutionary Theory that we find any justification for even assumed dominance over another species; we merely find a scientific theory for explaining biodiversity.

My opponent has repeatedly shown no evidence to suggest that the Theory of Evolution is racist. He has, however, attempted to twist the Theory of Evolution beyond its scope and definition to seem racist. The Theory of Evolution was not born out of racism and it certainly did not create racism which has existed throughout all of recorded history. The Theory of Evolution is merely a scientific endeavor with no political or social motivations of its own. It is for these reasons that you should vote CON. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
87 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nightcrawlercyp 3 years ago
nightcrawlercyp
holyyakker is mistaken in saying that Hitler did not inspire himself from the theory evolution as Hitler himself mentions this in his book. Also the eugenics movement also sprung in America and used evolution theory as support.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"He does not NEED to honor or esteem his creation since his creation has choice to do contrary to his will
"

So he must disrespect himself, otherwise he wouldn't be so ambivalent about his will as to create mechanisms that make it less likely from being carried out. :D.
Posted by jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
"He disrespects his own creation? So does he disrespect himself?"
He does not NEED to honor or esteem his creation since his creation has choice to do contrary to his will. Def. Respect: to honor or esteem. Not honoring and esteeming is different than to regard or treat without respect; regard or treat with contempt or rudeness. (def. of disrespect) Further there are several definitions for each respect and disrespect while as only one may actually apply in the context you speak, that one is not the majority use, thus it could be misleading on both our parts.
Posted by Miserlou 8 years ago
Miserlou
Rezzealaux said it. Also: "When you have something claiming to be scientific that CAN support your racist views that is a lot more difficult to battle than the old school racism of the past."

In the past, religion was usually used; "kill them because they're heathens" and such. Anything can be rationalized into propaganda if you try hard enough.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Well first of all... I'm not a racist. At least, not by what I perceive to be your definition.

And I find it quite funny how you say that racism is now more abundant than before, when evolution was not around. I'd say that history dictates quite the opposite; now that evolution is being taught more and more in schools, things we saw back in the 1960's and 1970's aren't happening anymore.
Posted by jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
I understand we saw racism prior, but I would argue the degree was not the same. When you have something claiming to be scientific that CAN support your racist views that is a lot more difficult to battle than the old school racism of the past.
Posted by jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse says "Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." Reference; Ruse, Michael, "Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians," National Post (May 13, 2000), p. B-3.

This is different than waffles it is more like dare I say, a religion.
Posted by jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
I agree with the Nazi and mystical ism, but again look at my contention.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"Did you read the debate? what about the prominent evolutionary scientist and their racist views derived from the Theory?"

Intent of yours being to show that since some people derive racism from evolutionary theory, that the theory of evolution is racist.

"I derive my hate from thinking about waffles.

Waffles do not suddenly equate to hate for everybody else."

Intent of mine being to show that just because some people derive hate from waffles, that waffles does not mean it inherently contains the attribute of hate.
Posted by Miserlou 8 years ago
Miserlou
I agree, disrespect is different from not respecting. Not sure what your implying by that though.

Yes, I read the debate, and the arguments you just brought up are really what made me thing it was so absurd in the first place. I don't deny Darwin and all those founders of the evolutionary were racist, but people who weren't racist in that era were few and far between. But that doesn't matter, what does matter is that Darwin could have been a serial killer and it doesn't mean that his scientific findings aren't legitimate. That's getting into ad hominen.

As for your second point, I think you might want to retake a history class. Ever heard of the spanish inquisition? The crusades? And the fact that slavery has been around en masse since nearly as far as civilization? And black slavery began in the 16th and 17th centuries.

That being said, you are making the mistake a lot of people make by confusing scientific Darwinism, the real theory of evolution, with social darwinism. Social darwinism was made up by racists to promote their ideals, and twisted to connect to the theory of evolution so that they could claim science.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jmlandf 7 years ago
jmlandf
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Miserlou 8 years ago
Miserlou
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by holyyakker 8 years ago
holyyakker
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
jmlandfholyyakkerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05