this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
898 points (98.5% liked)

News

24599 readers
3797 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
WrenFeathers@lemmy.world
898
RFK Jr’s claim about Black people’s immune systems is ‘unscientific and terrifying’ (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 2 days ago by flango to c/news@lemmy.world
116 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Kennedy’s hearing signifies how close a man with medically racist beliefs is to becoming the US’s leading health official

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, when you read cherry picked quotes from creationist websites, you are going to get a very warped view of evolution and Darwin. I would suggest in the future reading primary sources directly (both Origin of Species and The Descent of Man are freely available in the public domain - Origin is going to be way easier for you to read). You always want to critically evaluate your secondary sources for bias and accuracy.

Another thing to be aware of us that language use changes over time. “THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE” is basically a summary of natural selection - “favored”/selected for species survive, other species die.

I am curious where your claim that Darwin “had a passion for misoginy[sic]” originates from as well. That would imply some unusually intense or abnormal sexist thoughts compared to Darwin’s contemporaries?

And yes - evolution has been used to justify the pseudo science of Social Darwinism and scientific racism, just as quantum physics has been used to justify the pseudo science of reiki and energy healing. But Schrödinger is not responsible for Deepak Chopra.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Is Science.org a creationist website? Further research affirms my believes instead of debunking it.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj4606

Darwin portrayed Indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia as less than Europeans in capacity and behavior. Peoples of the African continent were consistently referred to as cognitively depauperate, less capable, and of a lower rank than other races. These assertions are confounding because in “Descent” Darwin offered refutation of natural selection as the process differentiating races, noting that traits used to characterize them appeared nonfunctional relative to capacity for success. As a scientist this should have given him pause, yet he still, baselessly, asserted evolutionary differences between races. He went beyond simple racial rankings, offering justification of empire and colonialism, and genocide, through “survival of the fittest.” This too is confounding given Darwin's robust stance against slavery.

As for your other question, same source

In “Descent,” Darwin identified women as less capable than (White) men, often akin to the “lower races.” He described man as more courageous, energetic, inventive, and intelligent, invoking natural and sexual selection as justification, despite the lack of concrete data and biological assessment. His adamant assertions about the centrality of male agency and the passivity of the female in evolutionary processes, for humans and across the animal world, resonate with both Victorian and contemporary misogyny.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yes - great progress in learning how to critically evaluate your sources! Science.org is a great source compared to “Evolution News” (creationist blog) or “World: Sound journalism, grounded in facts and biblical truth.”

No one has denied that Darwin held racist or sexist views. Everyone is aware that he was a 19th century Englishman who held many of the problematic views that 19th century Englishmen had.

Darwin offered refutation of natural selection as the process differentiating races, noting that traits used to characterize them appeared nonfunctional relative to capacity for success. As a scientist this should have given him pause, yet he still, baselessly, asserted evolutionary differences between races.

You might notice here, that Darwin noticed the science was not favoring his racist views. That’s way that maliciously quoted passage from Descent is so muddied - he is trying to reconcile his understanding (and the predominant understanding) with what the science says.

For sexism - Descent heavily emphasized the fact that female sexual selection is a major drive of natural selection. This is profoundly less sexist than contemporary natural philosophers understanding of reproduction.

I’m not even sure what argument you are trying to make any more. You seem to be a crypto creationist parroting bad faith arguments that were worn out on Usenet back when our worst fears were the Y2K bug.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

TIL anyone who shows that Darwin was factually racist is a crypto creationist.

Give it up. Science.org is very clear about Darwins racism and the quotes leave nothing to the imagination.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Are you a creationist? What are your views on natural selection?

Using two creationist sources and then finally resorting to science.org is pretty sus

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

No one has denied that Darwin held racist or sexist views.