[deleted]
> I never intended to say that you were. However, I think that even the
modest
> level of credulity you display towards the ICR's preposterous claims is
> unwarranted.
>
ICR's claims may go too far in this case but they aren't unwarranted, see
below.
[deleted]
> > I concede that "evolution" does not literally "grant" anything to
> >anyone, the ostensible grammar of my original sentence notwithstanding.
> >PEOPLE "infer" or claim theoretical connections between e.g. concepts and
> >consequences. I only suggested that inferring a logical connection between
> >purely naturalistic evolution and racism is not so easily dismissible.
>
> Except that it is, when one takes even a cursory look at human history.
> In fact, there is a simple test one can perform on the ICR's (ahem) theory.
> Their claim is that acceptance of evolutionary theory tends to make one more
> inclined towards racist beliefs. OK. Take a sample group of people (preferably
> a large one), half of whom accept evolution as a fact, half of whom strongly
> believe in Creationism. Then find out what percentage of each group believes in
> the superiority of one ethnic group over another.
>
> Has the ICR performed this experiment to test their theory? Have they performed
> any experiment to test it? No. So until they do, it is "easily dismissible",
> on the grounds that there is no significant supporting data.
>
It may be right (I haven't performed such a test myself) that today there
is no tendency among evolutionists towards racism. But there is another
form of evidence which confirms a connection between evolution and racism:
history. And it's a historical fact that in no country Darwinism was
received faster and more enthusiastically than in Germany. And it's also
that Hitler's Social Darwinism was one of the main principles in his
ideology and was firmly connected to his racist views which he justified
by appealing to the fact of evolution.
> > Personally, I still understand how some people WITHOUT racist
> >predispositions can plausibly correlate a naturalistic and non-theistic
> >"survival of the fittest" mentality with racism.
>
> Just as I can understand how someone without racist predispositions can
> plausibly correlate a biblical mentality with racism. But that that's
> just blind speculation.
>
But the former isn't speculation. If the way of creating is to select the
fitter group/'population' and and extinct the other then we have clearly a
struggle between different races. The point is that evolution gives racism
a 'scientific' backing which was and is important in a society you
believes that science is the way to find out the truth or where it is one
of the most damning judgments when you say that something is
'unscientific'.
> Perhaps I reached a little too far on that one. However, I do know that,
> from what I've read and who I've talked to, the concept of clearly definable
> "races" of humans (i.e., the belief that there is a significant genetic
> difference
> between ethnic groups) is becoming less and less accepted by the scientific
> community.
This is a good example how science in some instances can correct false
judgements , but I think there is a difference between scientific and
evolutionary conclusions.
Best wishes
Oliver