Do Muslims Accept Evolution?

[HiraanBorn]

You're a loser and categorically incompetent. None of your desperate pathetic ignorant calls for attention change that.

Most people on this thread have the substance to carry a mature conversation no matter their standing on knowledge and views; you're the only one who could not. Everyone treats you like a child, lmao. The only reason you're acting out is because of your raging insecurity so you throw a hissy fit. Everybody sees that. started talking about my name too. Hating ass sissy projecting his weirdo inferiority complex.

Get off my dick and never quote me again.

Yeah, okay sure.

 

[Omar del Sur]

Well at least you are basically admitting you have a strong bias against Darwin's work so that's why you can't be open-minded about it.

hell no I'm not open-minded about kufr.

 

[HiraanBorn]

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

Natural Selection and civilised society:
Darwin's own viewpoint extracted from his book: "On The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex."

In this section of the book, Darwin also turns to the questions of what after his death would be known as social Darwinism and eugenics. Darwin notes that, as had been discussed by Alfred Russel Wallace and Galton, natural selection seemed to no longer act upon civilised communities in the way it did upon other animals.

Darwin felt that these urges towards helping the "weak members" was part of our evolved instinct of sympathy, and concluded that "nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature". As such, '"we must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind". Darwin did feel that the "savage races" of man would be subverted by the "civilised races" at some point in the near future, as stated in the human races section below. He did show a certain disdain for "savages", professing that he felt more akin to certain altruistic tendencies in monkeys than he did to "a savage who delights to torture his enemies"

However, Darwin is not advocating genocide, but clinically predicting, by analogy to the ways that "more fit" varieties in a species displace other varieties, the likelihood that indigenous peoples will eventually die out from their contact with "civilization", or become absorbed into it completely.

His political opinions (and Galton's as well) were strongly inclined against the coercive, authoritarian forms of eugenics that became so prominent in the 20th century. Note that even Galton's ideas about eugenics were not the compulsory sterilisation which became part of eugenics in the United States, or the later genocidal programs of Nazi Germany, but rather further education on the genetic aspects of reproduction, encouraging couples to make better choices for their wellbeing.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Natural Selection and civilised society:
Darwin's own viewpoint extracted from his book: "On The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex."

In this section of the book, Darwin also turns to the questions of what after his death would be known as social Darwinism and eugenics. Darwin notes that, as had been discussed by Alfred Russel Wallace and Galton, natural selection seemed to no longer act upon civilised communities in the way it did upon other animals.

Darwin felt that these urges towards helping the "weak members" was part of our evolved instinct of sympathy, and concluded that "nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature". As such, '"we must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind". Darwin did feel that the "savage races" of man would be subverted by the "civilised races" at some point in the near future, as stated in the human races section below. He did show a certain disdain for "savages", professing that he felt more akin to certain altruistic tendencies in monkeys than he did to "a savage who delights to torture his enemies"

However, Darwin is not advocating genocide, but clinically predicting, by analogy to the ways that "more fit" varieties in a species displace other varieties, the likelihood that indigenous peoples will eventually die out from their contact with "civilization", or become absorbed into it completely.

His political opinions (and Galton's as well) were strongly inclined against the coercive, authoritarian forms of eugenics that became so prominent in the 20th century. Note that even Galton's ideas about eugenics were not the compulsory sterilisation which became part of eugenics in the United States, or the later genocidal programs of Nazi Germany, but rather further education on the genetic aspects of reproduction, encouraging couples to make better choices for their wellbeing.

Instead of using his work to prove that he wasn't a racist , you go ahead and cite interpretations of his work by people who engage in historical revisionism of what he states in his work

Not lets take a look at the full passage where darwin talks about civilised races ie europeans exterminating the savage races throughout the word.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Darwin in that quote states that the gap between civilised man & apes will widen so much that the closest ancestor will be a baboon, instead of as at the present between the negro or australian and gorilla. Meaning negroes and australians are closer to the gorilla than they are to europeans. In this hierarchy whites are at the top and apes at the bottom while negroes etc occupy a place in between them.

Not only that but he explicitly states "we may hope" clearly advocating for the break between civilised and savages races. In case you're wondering how this break will occur you only need to read the start where he states "civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate & replace the savages races". So genocide of savages races will ultimately lead to a future where there's only whites and the closest evolutionary ancestor will be an ape as low as a baboon.


As we can clearly read, darwin was more than just predicting the future. He was offering a biological explanation of the superiority of whites where he applies his theories of natural selection to humans. The extermination of savage races is nothing more than natural selection in action where the strongest survives and weakest get killed off in the struggle of life.


To put it in simple terms, darwin believed that the savage races were biologically inferior and it's because of this inferiority that led them to be exterminated. He was justifying their extermination by whites due to their inherent inferiority.

 

[HiraanBorn]

Instead of using his work to prove that he wasn't a racist , you go ahead and cite interpretations of his work by people who engage in historical revisionism of what he states in his work

Not lets take a look at the full passage where darwin talks about civilised races ie europeans exterminating the savage races throughout the word.





Darwin in that quote states that the gap between civilised man & apes will widen so much that the closest ancestor will be a baboon, instead of as at the present between the negro or australian and gorilla. Meaning negroes and australians are closer to the gorilla than they are to europeans. In this hierarchy whites are at the top and apes at the bottom while negroes etc occupy a place in between them.

Not only that but he explicitly states "we may hope" clearly advocating for the break between civilised and savages races. In case you're wondering how this break will occur you only need to read the start where he states "civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate & replace the savages races". So genocide of savages races will ultimately lead to a future where there's only whites and the closest evolutionary ancestor will be an ape as low as a baboon.


As we can clearly read, darwin was more than just predicting the future. He was offering a biological explanation of the superiority of whites where he applies his theories of natural selection to humans. The extermination of savage races is nothing more than natural selection in action where the strongest survives and weakest get killed off in the struggle of life.


To put it in simple terms, darwin believed that the savage races were biologically inferior and it's because of this inferiority that led them to be exterminated. He was justifying their extermination by whites due to their inherent inferiority.

Firstly, I don't think there's anything wrong with me using other people's interpretation of Darwin's work because it likely that they're more knowledgeable than me regarding the latter's writings.

Secondly, you should be mindful of quoting other people's work and interpretating it for your own purposes of argumentation especially when it's misleading in regards to the original author's intention.

I haven't got time to type pages upon pages rebutting your arguments, so I'm going to leave a link for you to look at regarding Darwin's views.

Here: https://biologos.org/articles/did-darwin-promote-genocide

Scroll down to the part where it discusses the passage that you quoted as proof of Darwin's genocidal enthusiasm.

 

[AdoonkaAlle]

Firstly, I don't think there's anything wrong with me using other people's interpretation of Darwin's work because it likely that they're more knowledgeable than me regarding the latter's writings.

Secondly, you should be mindful of quoting other people's work and interpretating it for your own purposes of argumentation especially when it's misleading in regards to the original author's intention.

I haven't got time to type pages upon pages rebutting your arguments, so I'm going to leave a link for you to look at regarding Darwin's views.

Here: https://biologos.org/articles/did-darwin-promote-genocide

Scroll down to the part where it discusses the passage that you quoted as proof of Darwin's genocidal enthusiasm.

The issue of contention is the historical revisionist that’s super imposed on what Darwin explicitly states in his work.

Neither you or the guy you’re referring to has addressed what I mentioned above about Darwin hoping the gap between man in his civilised state and that of apes be wider enough instead of current gap between negros & the gorilla.

Since blacks etc occupy a place between whites & apes etc, the only logical possibility to widen the gap between whites & apes is the removal of blacks from the hierarchy. Darwin as cited in that passage was hoping for this action to take place , now you can deny it however much you want to laakin the facts are quite clear. So if you believe that I’ve misunderstood Darwin please do enlighten me what you think he meant by that passage ?