DMB

Some have been confirmed; some haven't. But whether or not the bible contains accounts of historical events, it does not follow that therefore it is non-fiction. Large numbers of novels, for example, contain accounts often based on eye witness reports, of WW1, WW2, Vietnam, etc. They are still fictional.

dk

Ok, when did science become the basis for human rights, 20, 50, 100, 227,,, years ago. The US DoI, in 1776 based justified a revolution on inalienable rights, and in 1776 science absent metaphysics lacked a coherent theory of social science, political science or psychology, so the proposition of science as the basis of inalienable rights would be about 125 years arrear. Darwin's book published in 1859 was titled the "Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life", and Darwin’s cousin Galton was the founder of Eugenics.
"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work". ---- Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876).
This seems to me, to constitute strong irrefutable empirical evidence that science and racism have a long and bloody partnership.

Ion

It doesn't matter much in this discussion, other than saying that the present form of human rights is mainly less than 60 years old, with some older influences though:

most of the UN Code of Human Rights is drawn after the Second World War when the UN was formed in order to achieve an universal code of conduct and science supplanted more and more dumb religious beliefs;
however, the UN Code of Human Rights rekindles a purpose started by the intention of the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme from the late 18th century France's Robespierre Revolution, just before Napoleon;
(pretty much like the modern day Olympic Games are inspired from the ancient Olympic Games, the UN Code of Human Rights is inspired in purpose from the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme, but it has today's scientific knowledge input in it);
reading about the 1950s UN Convention of Geneva, and the 1970s UN Convention of Helsinki do come to my mind in regards to the make of the present UN Code of Human Rights.

Before the UN was formed in 1945, there wasn't an universal code of conduct (even during the League of Nations) and the so-called 'human rights' of each place and era were miguided by groping for 'knowledge' into the local religions, local experiences, local theories and local pseudo-theories.

DMB

Whatever Darwin's cousin did, that is not basis for labelling Darwin racist because of the title of his book, simply because he uses the word "races". At that time, "race" was not clearly delimited from "species" or "breed". In fact in our time "race" is still the French word for "breed" when talking about animals such as dogs. Darwin was clearly talking about "races" of animals, not necessarily human, in the title. I think all you could read from Darwin's reference to Malthus in this context is that Darwin did not make the big distinction between humans and other species that most of his contemporaries did.

In any case, even supposing that Darwin's work were inherently racist (which, of course, it isn't) how would that demonstrate " a long and bloody partnership between science and racism"? You would need a lot more evidence than Darwin's title!

dk

I cannot believe you seriously referenced the French Terror as the source of modern Universal Human Rights. You probably want to rethink the claim, frankly, the Spanish Inquisition was a tea party compared to the French Terror. At any rate over the last 60 years under the UN UHR Africa has been decimated by petulance, petty wars, and famine. South America has been raped by drug cartels, petty dictators and Cold War. China’s Great leap forward in 1959-60 left an estimated 30-40 million dead. By some estimates Stalin starved, imprisoned or murdered another 40 million. Obviously you’ve cut the US Bill of Rights and Magna Carta off as a source of human rights. I’m astounded at the frank admission, the last guy I know to hang Robespierre on a pedestal for human rights was Lenin.

dk

We can start with 1915 Armenian genocide, move on to WW II Germany or Japan's Eugenics programs, and finish with Moa's Great Leap Forward.

Ion

It is the intention of the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme that inspired the birth of the UN Code of Human Rights.

For example, the idea from the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme that 'Every human is innocent until proven guilty' is adopted into today's law.

Most of the ideas found in the UN Code of Human Rights, are less than 60 years old and are respecting today's scientific knowledge.

As for China and other cultures not respecting the UN Code of Human Rights, it's just that:
they are not respecting the UN Code of Human Rights.

The cultures respecting the UN Code of Human Rights are more civilized.

Ion

What for?

The UN Code of Human Rights is being progressively drawn since 1945.

dk

To say, "The the UN DoHR is derived from the UN DoHR", is circular.

lpetrich

Ion:
For example, science doesn't support differences between human races, and the UN Code of Human Rights follows science in the same vein.

Different populations do have distinctive physical features, but those are not very big differences, and most of our species' variability of genes is shared across populations. Light vs. dark skin, for example, is correlated with how much sunlight one's ancestors had received for the last 10,000 years or so.

dk:
... Darwin's book published in 1859 was titled the "Origin of Species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life", and Darwin’s cousin Galton was the founder of Eugenics. (Darwin on Malthus's book and how he worked out natural selection from that...)

This seems to me, to constitute strong irrefutable empirical evidence that science and racism have a long and bloody partnership.

That's a big load of bull excrement, O dk. It's clear that you have not really tried to understand Darwin's ideas but instead have tried to make some big villain out of him. Darwin was simply considering the effects of surviving in the world -- that those animals and plants that one sees are those that are efficient at surviving, simply because that efficiency is what has helped them to survive.

Darwin himself did NOT agree with "Social Darwinism", for him, it was like stating that Napoleon was right and that every cheating businessman was right.

(Ion's request for evidence that Darwin was racist...)
dk:
We can start with 1915 Armenian genocide, move on to WW II Germany or Japan's Eugenics programs, and finish with Moa's Great Leap Forward.

Is this the same dk who had stated earlier that objecting to mass murder was the great no-no of protesting death?

That Armenian genocide was pulled off by the Ottoman regime, which was officially Islamic -- it's doubtful that they had much knowledge of Darwin's work.

Adolf Hitler believed that fighting the Jews was doing the work of the "Almighty Creator" and following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ and his famous temple temper tantrum.

As to Japan, it was State Shinto belief that Japan was created earlier than the rest of the world.