Darwin's Finch

Coragyps: Can any of you history buffs shed some light on Ham's claim that "race" didn't mean "color" before 1859?

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Fourth Edition):

Race: 1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. 2. A group of people united or classified together onthe basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. 3. A genealogical line; a lineage. 4. Humans considered as a group. 5. Biology a. 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. b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals. 6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

Etymology: French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.

Usage Note: The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. (Emphasis added)

As usual, Ham is talking out of his ass. Darwin's understanding and use of "race" clearly accords with definition five above. Ham and his ilk have been trying for years to paint C.D. with the same brush that they would Nazi party hacks, American white-trash rednecks, etc. You're right to be suspicious because it's bullshit.

hezekiah jones

Correction: According to the gang at the Discovery Institute, American white-trash rednecks, a.k.a. "guitar strumming hillbillies," are Ham's allies.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Darwin's Finch

American white-trash rednecks, a.k.a. "guitar strumming hillbillies," a.k.a. "the dentally challenged."

ecco

From the link:
Soooo, GOD sent us Abraham Lincoln but WE are subjecting our children to Darwinism. It boggles the mind that Christians always credit GOD for “good” and blame EVERYONE BUT GOD for “evil”. If their god sent us Abraham Lincoln then their god also sent us Hitler and Darwin (probably just another one of god’s ways of testing our faith).

ohwilleke

Blaming Darwin for Nazism and Communism is far fetched. Both the Nazi and Communist movement had their roots in bitter mass poverty, not evolution. If anyone is to be blamed for Nazi Germany is its Hitler who exploited it, his leading henchmen, and the parties to the Treaty of Versaille ending WWI which helped bring about the conditiosn that launched it. The Communist movement certainly owed something to Marx, but it was not a statement about evolution and his beliefs on God have far more to do with the writings of Epicurius (upon whom he wrote his dissertation) than Darwin (Marx being no biologist). And the conditions Marx sought to address sprang more from absolutist monarchs (such as the Tsars in Russia) and Britist industrialists, than any view on the Origin of the Species.

Also, Lincoln was at best ambiguious in his religious belief, and while he freed the slaves, full freedom didn't make much progress until after World War II when segregation was dismantled. Much of the good he did was unraveled by Andrew Johnson, who rolled back many of the gains Lincoln had tried to achieve.

Had Lincoln chosen not to fight the civil war, North America and world history would be different, there is no doubt. It would hardly have been the end of civilization, however.

tgamble

Funny how's there's no mention of the so called cursed line of Ham....

<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creation_and_racism.htm" target="_blank">http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/creation_and_racism.htm</a>

<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/australian_aboriginal_by_ken_ham.htm" target="_blank">http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/australian_aboriginal_by_ken_ham.htm</a>

<a href="http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_science_of_racism.htm" target="_blank">http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_science_of_racism.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html</a>

Ken Ham, of course, has never let facts alter his warped views. AIG forbids it!

RufusAtticus

That would be a major problem for the Southern Baptists who were against that messanger of God. I doubt many who read that would even gather the consequences of Lincoln being a divine servent.

-RvFvS

DireStraits

It is often said that Darwin was a racist. I am willing to say that by today's standards, he could be viewed as such.

But then the same thing could be said of the man who believed that blacks should not have voting rights. The man who also expressed the desire to ship all blacks back "to Liberia - their native land", a wierd idea, since many blacks' ancestors were on this continent before his own.

Well, was Lincoln a racist by today's standards?

ex-preacher

Lincoln was clearly a racist.

Some of his words from a speech in Springfield, Illinois in 1857 (shortly after the Dred Scott decision):
"In some respects she [a black woman] is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others."

"But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing of blood by the white and black races. Agreed for me - a thousand times agreed."

ex-idaho

Here is the letter that I sent.

I would like to take issue with the comments made by David Stone in a letter published on Feb 11. President Lincoln did a brave and noble thing in his emancipation of the slaves. He was not only opposed by slave owners but by clergy. For generations slavery was justified through quotes of Biblical passages. It was accepted practice that God approved of slavery. The Bible even gives laws that govern the treatment of slaves.

Mr Stones second assertion that Darwin was somehow responsible for the acts of Hitler and Stalin is laughable. Darwin was a scientist and a brilliant man. Even if Darwins works did inspire the horrible acts of such men that does not make him responsible. Since the founding of civilization one group of people has sought the destruction of another. That destruction begins with finding a perceived inferiority in your enemy. The ancients were no different than modern man in this respect. Whether it is the Jews killing all of Amekilites, Hitler gassing Jews or Amercian government scientist infecting black army personnel with syphillis, it was all done because they are percieved to be geneticly inferior. Darwin was not responsible. These are all long help prejudices propped up on the back of religion.

Rick Boyd
Boise, ID