The Darwinian Conspiracy

When Darwin released his theory; the British ceased upon it. As the perfect justification, for their desire for world domination through colonialism. Up to that time they where under allot of pressure, to set
the colonies free. Because they were bothers and sisters as the Bible said; and should be treated as such as Jesus Christ said.
Darwinism remains the justification for every despot that has tried to dominate the world or parts of it. So it remains as the most preached, unscientifically supported, philosophy in the world. It can't even be challenged or questioned by scientist themselves; without repercussions.

Check out my little cartoon; that exposes how transparent this
propaganda conspiracy operates.

youtube.com...
Or see youtube= the missing link keeping up with those mad scientist
Howie47

Actually the British monarchs used the idea of Divine right, that they were appointed by God, to hold power over their people. No matter how crap they were, it was God's will that they stay in power. The Brit's pretty much always had the idea they were better. Remember, they brought enlightenment to the savages after all. With a sword, or a spear, or a rack.
As for there being no evidence... what no evidence are you speaking of? There is no fossil that shows a clear definition between a Neanderthal and a Cro-magnon perhaps, but there are fossils that show the emergence of humanoid hominids up to our ancestors, Cro-magnon.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Well you are correct. They did also use Divine right. Or as the Americans
put it, Manifest destiny. But with the Cristian religion and some what all
religion; they had that nagging truth, that we are all related brothers and sisters, we are all fallen sinners in need of mercy. "the merciful shall receive mercy". The Darwinian philosophy soon replaced the old religion.
Now they have the right because they are superior genetically. They always we're driven by their egos and feelings of pride. Evolution justified those impulses. True Christianity exposes them as part of the sinful nature!

Needs more homework

Are you suggesting that the British aristocracy (that's what they called their ruling elite in 1859) cooked up natural selection as a way of justifying imperialism?

How so? Are you suggesting the the principle of natural selection states that 'natives' overrun by redcoats demonstrated their 'inferiority' in defeat, and thus by nature's law must be enslaved? What does that mean? It has nothing to do with the survival of the fittest. You might call it exaltation of the fittest, but that has nothing whatever to do with Darwinian theory. In any case, evolution by natural selection is about differences between species (which cannot interbreed) not races (which can).

Or are you suggesting Darwinism was used as an excuse for trying to eradicate these supposedly inferior races? Well, the British never attempted to do that, apart, perhaps, for the miserable onslaught against the Aborigines by the settlers of Australia. You forget that the British held India with its teeming millions (two hundred million even in Kipling's time); they were well aware that they could not eradicate so many, nor did they wish to; the labour of those teeming multitudes enriched the imperial coffers.

So much for the history; now for the science. 'Evolution by natural selection' doesn't mean what you seems to think it means. More than any religion has ever been able to show, it clearly demonstrates how closely all human beings are physically related (are 'brothers', if you like) and also how closely we are related to other creatures on this planet. Unlike religion, which divides people, Darwin's great theory is a unifier. The growing number of people who now enjoy a sense of the relatedness and interdependence of all life certainly didn't get it from the Bible, in which all other living things exist to be eaten or exploited by Man; they got it from the slowly-percolating, irresistible acceptance and internalization of Darwin's ideas in modern society.

You also catastrophically misunderstand Darwin if you think his theory says anything about the 'superiority' or 'inferiority' of species or races, or even about that of individuals except in terms of their differential success in survival and reproduction. Sundry racists and so-called 'social Darwinists' have drawn mistaken implications from Darwin and used them to justify their own greed and prejudice, but you can't blame a scientific theory for some vicious oaf's perversion of it -- especially when a Himalaya of evidence points to the theory being true.

You set up a straw man, woven together from your own misunderstanding of Darwinism and its implications. You then blame that puppet for imperialism, an evil (if that is what it is) that Darwin's theory was never intended to explain or justify. Then you fall upon the straw man and tear him to pieces. All very entertaining, no doubt, but hardly edifying. Darwin and his great insight remain unaffected by your antics.

I suggest you read a little British imperial history, a good biography of Darwin, and of course The Origin of Species. When you have a slightly better grasp of your subject matter, you may be able to put forward a more convincing argument to substantiate your 'conspiracy'. More likely, you will be so embarrassed by your former ignorance you won't have another word to say on the subject.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


"Are you suggesting that the British aristocracy (that's what they called their ruling elite in 1859) cooked up natural selection as a way of justifying imperialism? "
Howie> They where also called "blue bloods", a reference too their perceived physical superiority, through heritage. Which Darwin's book gave credence too. As I originally said, in my first sentence. "When Darwin released his theory; the British seized upon it"
The rest of your post is just as mentally disorganized, lacking of knowledge, and full of an attitude of protest against any suggestion that your point of view could be wrong; that I can't see any (reason) to respond to it.

Must try harder

Originally posted by Howie47
They where also called "blue bloods"

No, only royalty was called that. There is a difference between a royal and an aristocrat.

As I originally said, in my first sentence. "When Darwin released his theory; the British seized upon it"

Actually, what you originally said (in you first sentence) was, '...the British ceased upon it.' Which is really rather funny -- it suggests that Darwinism killed off the British.

The rest of your post is just as mentally disorganized,

As mentally disorganized as what? How can a forum post have a mind, disorganized or otherwise? Ah, I see: you mean I'm mentally disorganized. That's a bit rude, but it's very possible, very possible indeed.

lacking of knowledge

Lacking in knowledge. I may be mentally disorganized but I know my grammar.

and full of an attitude of protest against any suggestion that your point of view could be wrong;

Sorry, lad, you've got me there. Can't make head nor tail of what you're saying.

that I can't see any (reason) to respond to it.

Yes, I can see why you might want to keep reason confined within parentheses.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by Astyanax]

What is remarkable about Darwin's theory is that it was seized upon by the establishment during the most devout religious period in Britain since the Dark Ages. This is testament to its simplicity, sublime genius and the manner in which it explains the development of the natural world. I agree that Darwinism is seen as something of a scared cow that cannot be criticised, but evolutionary theory has moved on so much since the time of Darwin that poking holes in The Origin of Species isn't worhtwhile.

I do enjoy the irony of the OP's standpoint in failing utterly to note that imperialism by all European nations was motivated on the grounds that god-fearing Christians were superior to Johnny Native and we had a moral obligation to convert the savages by force of arms. By the time that Darwin published his work, the British Empire was at its height and no justification was required by the ruling classes to maintain the status quo.

Hi. Naboo, thanks for reading my post with an open mind.
The devout religious period you speak of was certainly not enjoyed by all.
Many were undoubtedly desperate for a way out of what they saw as
religious oppression and suppression. They seized upon Evolution as an
alternative. Even though Darwin had no real evidence or science to support his theory. They took it hoke, line and sinker. So it wasn't a testament to simple sublime explanation of where we came from. It was the fact that Evolution negated the need for a Creator, and therefore, a
God and religion.
Yes, those of the Ellette would embrace any ideology that would serve there
purpose of domination of others. Was much of the world still savage during the colonization period of the British empire? Yes! And the Britts did
bring a uniting civility to those lands and peoples. Which endures until today. Just compare many of the former colonies with other countries on the same continents.
My point of course was. That the British Empire was already under allot of pressure too set the colonies free. Darwinism gave them a new reason to continue their domination. "Those inferior peoples would never fully get
self rule; because they were just not evolved enough, to rule themselves."
P.S. Sorry about any misspelling and grammar mistakes. I try to concentrate on thoughtfully composed content. Not a glossy sheen of perfectly written
B.S.

The Brit's viewed everyone as savages, at least, anyone who wasn't British. The Japanese, with their highly sophisticated culture. The Middle Eastern peoples, despite the fact that their cultures were much older than the Brits. The English conquered India, were constantly at war with France, and generally just shoved themselves wherever they wanted for God and Country.
Not for Darwin.
The English used whatever they wanted to justify their rule and Establish their Empire. The elites always have. it doesn't matter what their philosophy for doing so is.

reply to post by Howie47


Howie,

Any pressure on the British to withdraw from the colonies came from the occupied people themselves and not from any external pressure. Uprisings were quashed by military force motivated by a religious ruling class. The peasantry/working classes of Britian have never been particularly religious, religious fervour during Victorian times was the preserve of the Middle and Upper-Middle classes who were responsible for the day-to-day administration of the empire.

One of the worst examples of British burtality in empire was the manner in wich the Indian Rebellion of 1857 was supressed. The rebellion started as a mutiny by Muslim soldiers due to working conditions and religious insensitivity on the part of the British Army and resulted in a full-scale Muslim uprising. During the rebellion and the British retalliation religious justification was given for some extraordinarily brutal acts undertaken as part of a "no prisoners" policy by the British Establishment. Commanders ordering these acts often thought of themselves and righteous Christians dealing with sub-human non-believers.

This was in 1857, just two years before The Origin of Species was published and is indicative of a pattern of religious motivation in the continued running and exansion of the empire which continued right through to the Boer War. Even as the British Empire waned during The Great War, religious propoganda was used to spur on the honest British Tommy and justify an increasingly futile, murderous campaign to the British public.

Darwin showed the Brits that people all over the world are the same. The Bible teaches us that people all over the world are different, and should be treated differently. Darwinian evolution is the great equaliser, not the Bible. The Bible caused far more damage than Darwin ever could.

Originally posted by Na boo the Enigma
reply to post by Howie

 

Howie,

Any pressure on the British to withdraw from the colonies came from the occupied people themselves and not from any external pressure. Uprisings were quashed by military force motivated by a religious ruling class. The peasantry/working classes of Britain have never been particularly religious, religious fervor during Victorian times was the preserve of the Middle and Upper-Middle classes who were responsible for the day-to-day administration of the empire.

One of the worst examples of British brutality in empire was the manner in which the Indian Rebellion of 1857 was suppressed. The rebellion started as a mutiny by Muslim soldiers due to working conditions and religious insensitivity on the part of the British Army and resulted in a full-scale Muslim uprising. During the rebellion and the British retaliation religious justification was given for some extraordinarily brutal acts undertaken as part of a "no prisoners" policy by the British Establishment. Commanders ordering these acts often thought of themselves and righteous Christians dealing with sub-human non-believers.

This was in 1857, just two years before The Origin of Species was published and is indicative of a pattern of religious motivation in the continued running and expansion of the empire which continued right through to the Boer War. Even as the British Empire waned during The Great War, religious propaganda was used to spur on the honest British Tommy and justify an increasingly futile, murderous campaign to the British public.

Howie> I wasn't trying to blame brutality on either Darwinism or Religion. Mankind has always had that predisposition. With ignorance of either philosophy. Christianity on the other hand, certainly slowed down that
disposition. At least among the nations that tolerated Christians. When leaders did want to revert to their baser natures. They would either totally corrupt Christian teachings, or undermine them with beliefs like Evolution. Or both. Communism, Nazism and others, allowed only churches by (permit) and instituted strict teaching of Evolution as a fact, in their school systems. Systematic extermination, eugenics, and genocide is much easier justified with Darwinism then Christianity. But no philosophy will stop determined people from committing such acts.