899
RFK Jr’s claim about Black people’s immune systems is ‘unscientific and terrifying’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2025
899 points (98.5% liked)
News
24599 readers
3856 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe I misinformation. A few quotes I saw did not provide a great look.
Nonetheless evolution was widely used in the past to provide a "scientific" argument for racism instead of a "religious" argument.
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.
Is Science.org a creationist website? Further research affirms my believes instead of debunking it.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj4606
As for your other question, same source
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.
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.
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.
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