"Women are Inferior"- Darwin's Theory

[Inquisitive_]

Darwin was just a man of his time. Any person growing up in that area will bound to be a sexist, racist and xenophobe. Great Islamic scholars were also racist and sexist as hell but that doesn't change the intellectual work they have produced. We all are socially engineered by the prevailing ideas of the particular society we grow up in. That's why it's important to be a skeptic and challenge ideas to see whether they hold up to scientific scrutiny.

However values are not up for scientific scrutiny and that's why many societies are held back. The Europeans have constantly managed to re-weave and change their values until they finally came up with the Universal declaration of human rights which I think are powerful values that significantly reduce suffering.

You and @VixR cut from the cloth, brother @Rorschach and myself have already pointed out this wasn't a mere belief based on hocus pocus or the misogyny of those days, he used his theories to argue their inferiority which make absolute sense and none of you countered him using the same principles he doctored to refute him with it.

The question here is since both of you clearly reject this on emotional grounds, on what basis do you accept or reject his plethora of assumptions, conclusions and finding which all take a very simple path/direction? is this emotional driven as it very clearly looks? or is it just blind following?

You equating Islamic scholars (again provided no proof) that held the view that women were inferior based on the views of their time even IF true is irrelevant as they didn't bring about the scripture nor did they author it.

However occultist Darwin produced the scriptures himself, he is the father of natural selection and evolution, the inventor understands it best, hence I understand your pains and cognitive dissonance here, it's hard to refute the Godfather of a theory he doctored which he uses to argue the inferiority of not just women but also blacks.

Both of you have pathetically dishonoured yourselves after Allah has honoured you, I feel the sense of self-hate and pain your both going through.

 

[VixR]

Not really. It just strengthens our argument that he's liar, since we don't believe that any of his theories have been scientifically proven (playing jigsaw puzzles with bones of different species doesn't count). To us both the 'evolution from primates' theory and the racist/sexist theories are one and the same - unproven malarkey with circumstantial evidence. The difference is, one has fallen out of favour recently.

I understand the argument that even the devil has the capacity to speak the truth. If you believe evolution to be true, the argument in this thread alone can't sway you logically. Nothing wrong with pissing on one of your prophets though .

No, it doesn't. And no, he's not "one of my prophets". I have no prophet.

But if your question is does his view on women somehow upend the embodiment of his scientific discoveries, then the answer is a simple no.

 

[TooMacaan]

The greatest thing about rejecting fundamentalism is that you don't have to accept every word that someone/something says...as objective truth. She can simultaneously admire Darwin and parts of his scientific works while ALSO acknowledging that he held misogynistic view points.

It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. A lot of historical figures that we admire today have flaws and regressive view points by either ideal or today's standards. For example, my favorite western philosopher is Aristotle...but he's known for being very sexist...does that make his other works invalid or less valuable to me...?? Nope.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

@simulacrum

Since you're convinced of the theory would care to explain how the selection process of "natural selection" operates ?

 

[Rorschach]

No, it doesn't. And no, he's not "one of my prophets". I have no prophet.

But if your question is does his view on women somehow upend the embodiment of his scientific discoveries, then the answer is a simple no.

He is your prophet whether you like it or not.

 

[Inquisitive_]

Reproducibility, repeatability, evidence, verification, whatever you want to call it. It's anything but a case of blind conformity. There's nothing the scientific process doesn't account for. In science, you accept the evidence and reject the fiction in postulation regardless of the person behind the discovery. We know black people aren't a subrace and we know the complexities of intelligence, and that the average man is no more intelligent than the average woman. Your quotes on him regarding women or what have you don't automatically discredit natural selection, unfortunately for you.

This whole verification/testing malarky your talking about if your honest with yourself is not something you have done personally but rather rely on external parties whom you rest your faith on.

I asked you a very simple question which you didn't answer, don't give me buzz words, explain to me how you personally accept or reject the plethora of different assumptions/finds/conclusions he has made? also give me the argument from Natural selection/Evolution why Darwin and the entire scientific establishment and his student up until the 19th century are wrong? counter them in your own words/logic/rational/thinking.

Godfather Darwin's wasn't just a misogynist or a racist alone, he was masonic occultist like his entire family and his best friend, he was also a mad-man, suffered from bouts of depression/delusions he was also a white-supremacist with an extreme low self-esteem, he was also Malthusian that believed the world was over populated and the list goes on and on of his madness.

So on what basis do you accept some and reject others from a personal individual standpoint? I don't want to hear bishop said, pope said, Dawkins said, 20th century said malarky nonsense.




@simulacrum

The whole thing changed late 19th century and that coincided with women being allowed to vote and being put into workplace, hence they could no longer uphold such theories as it would counterproductive for such times, they had bigger goals of (more taxes) and brainwashing the kids (you guys are products)

The same way homosexuality considered a mental illness was removed as a population reduction strategy, it was all done by same elitist cabals whom take their orders from Satan himself, the idea that it was done due to "scientific break through" or some form of benevolence or enlightenment is wishful thinking.

You have no evidence to support this, I do! I have the declassified CIA files and Wikileaks to support my position on this, you have none of this, nothing knew was discovered in the late 19th century when those views changed to disprove them at all.

 

[DrippinglyWet]

The greatest thing about rejecting fundamentalism is that you don't have to accept every word that someone/something says...as objective truth. She can simultaneously admire Darwin and parts of his scientific works while ALSO acknowledging that he held misogynistic view points.

It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. A lot of historical figures that we admire today have flaws and regressive view points by either ideal or today's standards. For example, my favorite western philosopher is Aristotle...but he's known for being very sexist...does that make his other works invalid or less valuable to me...?? Nope.

So you're an atheist?

 

[Inquisitive_]

hmmm, for some reason i see where old Darwin was coming from he states that if we were to analyse the men and women in poetry , sciences , physics (including quantum), engineering , mechanics , mathematics , computer science and medicine and put them in to categorise of each sector and which gender dominates it , you will find that even today men dominate a LOT of these sectors , concluding that he could be on to something however i don't allude to the idea that women are dumb because we aren't.

Women for the most part enjoy beauty (modelling is dominated by women) , and or compassionate jobs such as nurses (again dominated by women) Women simply have no interest in STEM the government spends money to try and appeal to women into doing STEM its laughable to be honest. I think we have differences , but what men dominate and do in even todays society makes the most impact , and that was the point he was making or at least thats what i perceived.

NOTE: i don't agree with all of what he said just the statement of "if we were to analyse...." yada yada and how it still applies today. Nothing more , nothing less .

Nope sister your wrong! he explicitly categorically argues for their inferiority making them akin to Negro's (white-women) as for the black-women she is the worst, right at the bottom of the ditch.

We see the ramifications of this today were the standards of beauty are everyone else except the black women (for which there is a pathetic unspoken quota as not upset them too much, and the ones that look like Caucasians the most are selected)

You see the ramifications of Darwinism until this day and it's only because of liberalism/political correctness why it doesn't come out, but it's everywhere to the point were people are driven towards self-hate (as you can see on those whom left their culture/religion for this Europhile racist/facists believes)

The arguments he used can easily be debunked but none of these people whom take him as their Godfather and source of light have yet tried, the same way I can debunk his entire theory. The whole reason I am here is as a free community project to do my part, I do not care about the outcome at all but at least I'll have a case infront of my Lord when the question comes or when one of these peasants tries to make a case against me.



@SuldaanGuled


Brother, as I was telling the sister above, I do not care one bit about these people, the outcomes are irrelevant to me.

I am only here so that at least on judgement day I can say I made the efforts to proselytise to my people while banking all this effort into that Akhira account inshaallah.

If anything my posts are primary for the silent readers whom are many and those filled with doubts rather then likes of these for whom I will be an evidence against them.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

This whole verification/testing malarky your talking about if your honest with yourself is not something you have done personally but rather rely on external parties whom you rest your faith on.

I asked you a very simple question which you didn't answer, don't give me buzz words, explain to me how you personally accept or reject the plethora of different assumptions/finds/conclusions he has made? also give me the argument from Natural selection/Evolution why Darwin and the entire scientific establishment and his student up until the 19th century are wrong? counter them in your own words/logic/rational/thinking.

Godfather Darwin's wasn't just a misogynist or a racist alone, he was masonic occultist like his entire family and his best friend, he was also a mad-man, suffered from bouts of depression/delusions he was also a white-supremacist with an extreme low self-esteem, he was also Malthusian that believed the world was over populated and the list goes on and on of his madness.

So on what basis do you accept some and reject others from a personal individual standpoint? I don't want to hear bishop said, pope said, Dawkins said, 20th century said malarky nonsense.

Fuuny enough even though they mention these demarcation arguments as evidence in support of science, they fail to realise that what they're convinced of fails to meet the conditions they've set up as the yard stick. Furthermore these same arguments are applied selectively esp when it comes to religion.

How do you reproduce, observe a process that supposedly takes millions of years ?? how do you verify that random mutation and natural selection can account for what we observe? how do you test the efficacy of such a process to begin with ??

It's easy to attribute wonders to such processes but really hard to prove them empirically. There's a limit to what these process are actually capable of and funny enough this can be demonstrated empirically, but we're told given enough time the impossible become possible. As if time was the only variable missing from the equation. There are no known causes to man that are able to account for life as we know it other than God.

 

[Rorschach]

The greatest thing about rejecting fundamentalism is that you don't have to accept every word that someone/something says...as objective truth. She can simultaneously admire Darwin and parts of his scientific works while ALSO acknowledging that he held misogynistic view points.

It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. A lot of historical figures that we admire today have flaws and regressive view points by either ideal or today's standards. For example, my favorite western philosopher is Aristotle...but he's known for being very sexist...does that make his other works invalid or less valuable to me...?? Nope.

If a doctor who helped cure me last month prescribes me a dose of feces after every meal for a separate ailment, you better believe that I'm done with his/her practice. Your argument works if the two statements are separate from each other or if one of them is an incontrovertible truth. Example:

• Statement 1: 2+2=4
• Statement 2: I can fart diamonds

Statement 1 is an incontrovertible truth, so your argument works here.

• Genius mathematician
• Says you can use petrol fuel for your diesel engine

Who cares what a mathematician has to say about cars? Argument works here as well.

• Statement 3: I am studying the matters of existence and morality among other serious fields
• Statement 4: Women are inherently inferior.

Your argument doesn't work here. Statement 4 is similar to a doctor prescribing you feces - you reject it all.

Cala kuli xaal, stay away from Aristotle.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

Nope sister your wrong! he explicitly categorically argues for their inferiority making them akin to Negro's (white-women) as for the black-women she is the worst, right at the bottom of the ditch.

We see the ramifications of this today were the standards of beauty are everyone else except the black women (for which there is a pathetic unspoken quota as not upset them too much, and the ones that look like Caucasians the most are selected)

You see the ramifications of Darwinism until this day and it's only because of liberalism/political correctness why it doesn't come out, but it's everywhere to the point were people are driven towards self-hate (as you can see on those whom left their culture/religion for this Europhile racist/facists believes)

The arguments he used can easily be debunked but none of these people whom take him as their Godfather and source of light have yet tried, the same way I can debunk his entire theory. The whole reason I am here is as a free community project to do my part, I do not care about the outcome at all but at least I'll have a case infront of my Lord when the question comes or when one of these peasants tries to make a case against me.



@SuldaanGuled


Brother, as I was telling the sister above, I do not care one bit about these people, the outcomes are irrelevant to me.

I am only here so that at least on judgement day I can say I made the efforts to proselytise to my people while banking all this effort into that Akhira account inshaallah.

If anything my posts are primary for the silent readers whom are many and those filled with doubts rather then likes of these for whom I will be an evidence against them.

Mashallah Illahay haku sahlo sxb

We should team up walaal. For the longest time i've been thinking of writing a booklet about evolution & science in general. Just never got the time for it laakin i've given a few talks to uni & high school students. There's much to be done walaal

 

[Inquisitive_]

Fuuny enough even though they mention these demarcation arguments as evidence in support of science, they fail to realise that what they're convinced of fails to meet the conditions they've set up as the yard stick. Furthermore these same arguments are applied selectively esp when it comes to religion.

How do you reproduce, observe a process that supposedly takes millions of years ?? how do you verify that random mutation and natural selection can account for what we observe? how do you test the efficacy of such a process to begin with ??

It's easy to attribute wonders to such processes but really hard to prove them empirically. There's a limit to what these process are actually capable of and funny enough this can be demonstrated empirically, but we're told given enough time the impossible become possible. As if time was the only variable missing from the equation. There are no known causes to man that are able to account for life as we know it other than God.

You hit the nail on the head, the absurdity is just to cumbersome to even list, the best one is when they use 'infinity' to make arguments, like the whole monkey example recreating Shakespeare's work if given an 'infinite' time.

They don't even realise that the supposed development of the universe during the supposed big bang a time limit is given (16 billion or so years), the same with evolution, 'infinity' is never used as a time-line in any theory but yet they bring them in discussions and arguments to muddy the waters.

It's part of their madness and incoherence in theory/thought/rational and what's even worse then all this is the fact they believe they are somewhat enlightened and quasi intellectual, never seen this type of lunacy/derangement.

 

[TooMacaan]

So you're an atheist?

No, but I can understand the rationality and mindset of rejecting fundamentalism.

 

[OmarLittle]

The greatest thing about rejecting fundamentalism is that you don't have to accept every word that someone/something says...as objective truth. She can simultaneously admire Darwin and parts of his scientific works while ALSO acknowledging that he held misogynistic view points.

It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. A lot of historical figures that we admire today have flaws and regressive view points by either ideal or today's standards. For example, my favorite western philosopher is Aristotle...but he's known for being very sexist...does that make his other works invalid or less valuable to me...?? Nope.

If well-over the majority of scientists had a census like on Climate Change that different ethnicities/races had intellectual differences (black/African blacks at the bottom, white & Asians at the top) and women were intellectually inferior to men -- would you accept this conclusion in the modern age?

 

[Genie]

Nope sister your wrong! he explicitly categorically argues for their inferiority making them akin to Negro's (white-women) as for the black-women she is the worst, right at the bottom of the ditch.

We see the ramifications of this today were the standards of beauty are everyone else except the black women (for which there is a pathetic unspoken quota as not upset them too much, and the ones that look like Caucasians the most are selected)

You see the ramifications of Darwinism until this day and it's only because of liberalism/political correctness why it doesn't come out, but it's everywhere to the point were people are driven towards self-hate (as you can see on those whom left their culture/religion for this Europhile racist/facists believes)

The arguments he used can easily be debunked but none of these people whom take him as their Godfather and source of light have yet tried, the same way I can debunk his entire theory. The whole reason I am here is as a free community project to do my part, I do not care about the outcome at all but at least I'll have a case infront of my Lord when the question comes or when one of these peasants tries to make a case against me.



@SuldaanGuled


Brother, as I was telling the sister above, I do not care one bit about these people, the outcomes are irrelevant to me.

I am only here so that at least on judgement day I can say I made the efforts to proselytise to my people while banking all this effort into that Akhira account inshaallah.

If anything my posts are primary for the silent readers whom are many and those filled with doubts rather then likes of these for whom I will be an evidence against them.

Charles Darwin other Argument

a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on "Hereditary Genius" that . . . the average of mental power in man must be above that of women (Darwin, 1896:564).

^^^^ This is the paragraph i was referring to in which i think he makes a valid point and it still plagues society today that men dominate majority of these sectors , this is not misogynistic rather a simple observation. I agree with you on everything else like i said in my original post this is merely a correlation i noticed nothing more , nothing less.

 

[Genie]

Mashallah Illahay haku sahlo sxb

We should team up walaal. For the longest time i've been thinking of writing a booklet about evolution & science in general. Just never got the time for it laakin i've given a few talks to uni & high school students. There's much to be done walaal

Do it!

 

[SuldaanGuled]

You hit the nail on the head, the absurdity is just to cumbersome to even list, the best one is when they use 'infinity' to make arguments, like the whole monkey example recreating Shakespeare's work if given an 'infinite' time.

They don't even realise that the supposed development of the universe during the supposed big bang a time limit is given (16 billion or so years), the same with evolution, 'infinity' is never used as a time-line in any theory but yet they bring them in discussions and arguments to muddy the waters.

It's part of their madness and incoherence in theory/thought/rational and what's even worse then all this is the fact they believe they are somewhat enlightened and quasi intellectual, never seen this type of lunacy/derangement.

Exactly !!

They use it against us saying that only material causes should be considered when searching for an explanation but what happens when no naturalistic causes are known to produce the effects in question ? When we do cite a known cause able to produce what we see they reject it simply because it doesn't full fill their subjective criteria.

Most people simply believe in it as a result of having faith in scientists, so whatever a scientist claims it must be true. It never goes beyond that ruunti.

 

[TooMacaan]

If a doctor who helped cure me last month prescribes me a dose of feces after every meal for a separate ailment, you better believe that I'm done with his/her practice. Your argument works if the two statements are separate from each other or if one of them is an incontrovertible truth. Example:

• Statement 1: 2+2=4
• Statement 2: I can fart diamonds

Statement 1 is an incontrovertible truth, so your argument works here.

• Genius mathematician
• Says you can use petrol fuel for your diesel engine

Who cares what a mathematician has to say about cars? Argument works here as well.

• Statement 3: I am studying the matters of existence and morality among other serious fields
• Statement 4: Women are inherently inferior.

Your argument doesn't work here. Statement 4 is similar to a doctor prescribing you feces - you reject it all.

Cala kuli xaal, stay away from Aristotle.

Lol, just because your first three statements were reasonable doesn't mean your fourth is.
Yes, Aristotle is studying morality/existence but his Philosophy can't be summed up as one topic...it is a very wide 'field', if you will. Sorry but you still haven't proven how Aristotle's ignorant/short-sighted statements make his brilliant works on morality invalid. His major mistake, in my eyes, is his beliefs concerning the capability of women and our equality.

 

[DrippinglyWet]

No, but I can understand the rationality and mindset of rejecting fundamentalism.

Rejecting of fundamentalism is not something exclusively to atheist, if all religion would be fundamentalist humanity would not have grown as a society beyond the medieval period.
It's like rejecting vegetables because you don't like carrots.

 

[SuldaanGuled]

Do it!

Will do in the near future, ii soo ducay walaal

Laakin magac ficaan isku bixi walaashay. Shan-futo- leh waa maxay bisiinka

How about xamdi-xarifey ileen xarifad baad tahay ??