Another God said:
One section of it actually bothers to criticize charles darwin for his views on racial differences in humans: As if historic figures acting in their own time can be judged by modern standards. Sorry guys, but Darwin doesn't live in our time, its not-practical to apply our beliefs/morals/judgements upon him.
I haven't seen the link, though I've seen this sort of "argument", like "Darwin was a pre-nazi bastard that hatred god, stole candy from smaller kids when he was in school, and he peed on his own pants up to when he was 12 years old".
It is interesting to note, in this thing of racial issues, that although Darwin had views of racial differences that do not stood up with further evidence (or that wouldn't stand even with a bit more of logical analysis, with the current evidence of his time), he didn't supported ideas of racism, like slavery. In fact, in some of his writings, he expressed his abhor for slavery, when he witnessed the conditions of slaves in Brazil.
Also, parts in which he says things like "the savage cultures/peoples will eventually be eliminated by the civilized peoples", do not include any judgement of moral on the event, approving it, but he says that just as they are the previsible course of events, which turned out to not be wrong in great extent.
Even some social darwinists, like Herbert Spencer himself, did not approved genocide and such things, but actually said things in the sense of substitution of a culture by another improved one, where peoples on the "less evolved" cultures would simply adhere the new one. The whole thing actually is something a bit in the sense of some mid-far right politics of being opposite to social assistence and such things. At least as far as I recall, the things are more or less in this sense, but I haven't read really much, and these things I've said can be a bit more "light" than reality anyway.
(BTW, "social darwinism" came before darwinism; it was a popular set of ideas of that time and place, that more likely influenced Darwin than vice-versa, even though could be a bit of vice-versa anyway, since OTOOS and other writings of him were very influential. The "social darwinsm" term was coined in the 1940's I guess)
However, more importantly, even if Darwin and all the "eevilutionists" where in fact the evil incarnated, that doesn't make any theory less valid. Moral implications means nothing in science, only evidence really matters, which doesn't mean that we should not care for morality... interestingly evolution is the more victimized area of science of this sort of confusion. I don´t recall people complaining that Newton was a freak virgin that believed astrology and occultism, and led some people for execution, or even saying that his theory of gravity supported executions by hanging and made possible to people be suicide jumpers, or is to blame for traffic accidents and such
(but actually I've recently read of a far-right christian fundamentalist (and astrologist
) self-proclaimed phylosopher, that he finds many of his ideas on physics simply imbecile and he is to blame for the rise of atheism, which is actually the most evil thing, all so-called religious wars where in fact of atheists killing people, and atheism leads to communism, abortion, darwinism, anti-smoking and leftism in general)
