905
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
905 points (98.5% liked)
News
36063 readers
3518 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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
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