His personal philosophies have nothing to do with whether or not his scientific ideas are valid or not. Isaac Newton firmly believed in alchemy, but his principles of physics are still considered the foundation of all science (except quantum physics, but that doesn't count). Pythagoras believed that the universe was literally built out of mathematics, and yet we still use his theorum to fiddle with triangles. Edgar Allen Poe was a brilliant author whose works are considered by many to be the pinnacle of American Romantic writing, but he was a chronically depressive, maladjusted alcoholic who married his thirteen-year old cousin.
Soooo... just to make sure I understand what you're saying here: because someone's morals didn't agree with yours, their non-partial, scientific work is of no consequence?
That's "Anglo-Saxon". And, of course he was. The entire British Empire was of that mind. Even his Theory was influenced by the mindset of Britain of the Industrial Revolution. It is remarkable, however, that only a "minor" modification (Survival of the Fittest => Extinction of the Unfit) cements the Theory of Evolution into something incontrovertible.
By today's standards, Darwin probably would be considered racist; by the standards of his day, Darwin was much more egalitarian than most everyone else. He was a staunch opponent of slavery and had compassion for members of other races. This attitude can be said to be a direct result of his science. Evolution does not say that races or species are superior or inferior to others, only that some survive better than others. Darwin knew this quite well. He was an abolitionist and spoke strongly against slavery. In The Descent of Man he concludes that all humans are probably the member of the same species, and that they do not vary enough to be classified as separate ones.
It is only through a great misunderstanding of Darwin and evolution that people assume the science is racist.
Liebe Gott! Someone understands that you can't drop a modern mindset on a historical culture and end up with anything sensible. Revisionist history is as absurd as giving Fred Flintstone a pet dinosaur...
Comments
His personal philosophies have nothing to do with whether or not his scientific ideas are valid or not.
Isaac Newton firmly believed in alchemy, but his principles of physics are still considered the foundation of all science (except quantum physics, but that doesn't count). Pythagoras believed that the universe was literally built out of mathematics, and yet we still use his theorum to fiddle with triangles. Edgar Allen Poe was a brilliant author whose works are considered by many to be the pinnacle of American Romantic writing, but he was a chronically depressive, maladjusted alcoholic who married his thirteen-year old cousin.
Brilliance does not require perfection.
Excellent pattern-recognition skills, had he...
Not all Creationists believe the universe was made in seven days.
By today's standards, Darwin probably would be considered racist; by the standards of his day, Darwin was much more egalitarian than most everyone else. He was a staunch opponent of slavery and had compassion for members of other races. This attitude can be said to be a direct result of his science. Evolution does not say that races or species are superior or inferior to others, only that some survive better than others. Darwin knew this quite well. He was an abolitionist and spoke strongly against slavery. In The Descent of Man he concludes that all humans are probably the member of the same species, and that they do not vary enough to be classified as separate ones.
It is only through a great misunderstanding of Darwin and evolution that people assume the science is racist.