How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

[Sqrl]

Tyrannical said:

 

Evoloution is a racist theory invented by a racist man that justifies racism. Wouldn't you prefer if God created and loved all men equally?

http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/evolution/Darwin's%20Racism.html

Darwin’s primary racist viewpoints summed up:

1. Humans are divided into sub-species
2. The strongest live and the weakest die, which is good (Hitler and Marx agreed)
3. The sub-species are not simply variants
4. A "race war" would be beneficial to mankind
5. Blacks and Aborigines occupy a sub-species between Apes and Caucasians
6. The extinction of blacks and gorillas to advance the white "race" is good
7. Sub-species are also known as races
8. Different sub-species have different characteristics, such as mental capabilities
9. Irish are also non-Aryan and should be extinct
10. Europe doesn’t owe any ancestry to the Greeks
11. It would be good if a wealthy nation replaces a less privileged race
12. Christianity is a damnable doctrine, and Hitler agreed saying it is a rebellion against nature
13. Social Darwinism includes imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality and Darwinism was intended to explain society as a whole
14. "lower class" races should not normally be cared for; they should not multiply and should become extinct

Rath hit this dead on, it matters not what we would prefer to be the truth.  It has absolutely no bearing on reality as every adult is all too well aware.  The only way our preferences have any effect on reality is when we put forth the effort to make that preference into a reality and I don't think anyone would suggest that this is actually possible in the case of a preference for a theory such as this.

If, for example, Einstein had been an outspoken white supremecist I would still have a tremendous amount of respect for his scientific work and his intuitive genius.  He wouldn't, and shouldn't, get a pass for his racists views but his discoveries would not and should not be thrown away simply because he held a viewpoint we find offensive today.

The same is true of many of our founding fathers actually (USA), their racism is a tragic fact of history but should not lessen the greatness of their ideas and their words.  Those ideas and words exist seperate from their incomplete devotion to them and their inability to see their own hypocracy.  Everyone has hypocracy in their beliefs and actions in some way, it doesn't make their contribution to society incorrect or worthy of being shunned.

There is actually a phrase for such an argument that many here are probably familiar with: ad hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

In short it is not a valid form of intellectual debate because no man is perfect and if we are asked to only accept theories from the idealistic picture of a great man, of which no ill thing can be said, then science simply becomes an impossibility.

PS - And yes I'm using "man" in the gender inclusive sense of "mankind".