It is a form of scientific racism to theorize that Middle Eastern and European Neanderthal people and Homo erectus people in Asia and Africa were not fully human but were rather an evolutionary subspecies of humanity which became extinct. (Sub-humanism) To be fully human as a race or species means being capable of inter-fertility with all other people.
It is racial and scientific prejudice against people of Middle Eastern, European and Asian descent when theories of evolution deny their Neanderthal or Homo erectus ancestry and insist on substituting an African line of descent for them today. Since evolutionists maintain that Neanderthals and Homo sapiens both evolved from H. Erectus, either in Europe or Africa, there is no scientific reason or justification to assert that Homo erectus people in Asia were not the ancestors of today’s Asian people. All changes in human skull shapes, sizes and structural facial contours may be attributable to the passing of the Ice Age and the advent of current climatic conditions around the world.
It is a form of scientific racism against Arabs and Jews who believe that they are descendants of Abraham to propagate a theory that attributes his genealogical lineage to a mythological woman named Eve in Africa when any Arab and Jew can trace Abraham’s historical ancestry back to Middle Eastern origins for themselves.
Scientific Racism and Supremacy.
Discussion in 'Science' started by jcrawford, Jul 6, 2005.
Page 1 of 4
-
There are two threads in your provocative post.
One, what is the evidence for Neanderthals being or not being involved in our ancestry? We've all heard that the dna analysis of Neanderthals seems to place them outside the species barrier for Homo Sapiens. Why do you disagree with that analysis?
Two, trying to find the truth about our past will involve tracing what lines survived and what lines did not survive and where the lines were found in space and in time. Racism in our language is a crime, a sin. Seeking the nature of our past and trying to find out what really happened is neither a crime nor a sin. It is like calling somebody who goes back and studies the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden a sin lover. The very idea, being morbidly fascinated by that sordid episode . . . -
QUOTE = Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
"One, what is the evidence for Neanderthals being or not being involved in our ancestry? We've all heard that the dna analysis of Neanderthals seems to place them outside the species barrier for Homo Sapiens. Why do you disagree with that analysis?"
DNA also puts chimpanzees "outside the species barrier" for Homo sapiens. However, that doesn't preclude evolutionists theorizing that we are not only related to, but descended from, an African chimp-like species. To theorize that people from Europe and the Middle East are more closely related to a non-human African species than they are to Neandertal people is a form of scientific racism.
"Racism in our language is a crime, a sin. Seeking the nature of our past and trying to find out what really happened is neither a crime nor a sin. It is like calling somebody who goes back and studies the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden a sin lover."
Your analogy misses the point since there is nothing wrong with studying either nature, history or the Book of Genesis to ascertain information and knowledge. However, a scientific theory which denies Arab, Jewish or Semitic ancestry from Adam and Eve by theorizing that Abraham's ancestors evolved from non-human ape-like creatures in Africa through common descent with African Eve, is racist whether scientific or not since it denies the validity of the historical and cultural documents and traditions of an historic people. -
-
QUOTE = Originally posted by Daisy:
"The current theory is that the split between pre-chimp and pre-man came way before the split between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis."
Any theory that two human races or "species" of humans "split" off from some previous race or human "species" in Africa is racist because classifying different people according to fossils skull shapes, sizes and structural contours as different species is racist.
" ... no particular "race" is singled out in the theory; contrariwise, the theory is applied equally to all - the opposite of racism."
By classifying certain groups of people as progressively subhuman, (not fully human or less than)the theory of evolution singles them out as progessively resembling non-human ape-like African creatures. The theory doesn't apply equally to Neanderthals and Homo sapiens because nothing is predicted to have evolved from them.
"Again, "racist" is the wrong word as a theory that applies equally to all cannot be said to be racist by definition (of "racist")."
Racism is dependent on concepts and definitions of race which according to Oxford, are based on distinct physical characteristics of the major divisions of humankind which relate to genus, species, breed or variety of animals, including a group of persons, connected by common descent. -
You also want to confuse the original meaning of "racist" (ie. to categorize by race) with the modern, current meaning "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" and "prejudice or discrimination" (from Miriam-Webster (linkie)). The one meaning does not assign relative value to one race over another while the second, pejorative meaning does exactly that. It would help if you would tell me exactly what definition of "racist" you are using since there is more than one.
What does Africa have to do with it?
Since the theory of evolution is all about the change in populations over time, changes are definitely studied - why do you consider that "racist"?
That's a contradiction - if nothing is predicted to have evolved from either one of them, how is the theory being applied differently to each? Nothing is not different from nothing.
Are you defining "humankind" to extend beyond the species Homo sapiens? If so, how far beyond are you willing to go? I thought that "human" and "Homo sapiens" were synonymous, so if they are not I'm curious as to who all is included.
Finally, what does "supremacy" have to do with the theory of evolution? -
Second, the theory places Neandertal people much closer to Sapiens that it does chimpanzees. -
Has anyone here ever actually read "origin of species and the preservation of favored races"? Did you all know that was the full title of Darwin's "origin of species" book?
His theories are agressively racist and extremely sexist as well. Darwin thought that evolution had worked much faster on men than it did women. His theories also advocated that women were far less evolved (as were minorities). Darwin basically suggested that women were beautiful so that they could attrack a stong male who would protect and care for them. You can see the influence of this thinking in modern day advertising. One might even be able to attribute the rise of feminism to the influence of Darwininian thought. Women feel they have to be more attractive all the time - doing things like strange diets, cosmetics, and plastic surgery to enhance their appearance. Of course feminists rebel against this sterotyping arguing that they are MORE capable than men (from one ditch to the other). If they had the proper Biblical view, men and women would realize that - while differences exist, those differences are complimentary. They would realize that Eve was taken out of Adam - therefore she was physiologically his equal. Under a proper Biblical perspective all human beings came from one man - Adam - and are therefore equal. In 6000 years there is not an overabundance of opportunity for one 'race' to depreciate more than another. As a matter of fact, the differences genetically that make up the different factors we have been programmed (perhaps by darwininian thinking) make up about 0.1% of our genome. In actuality the Bible advocates that we are all one blood - the same race - having come from one man, Adam.
Act 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; -
Link to online text
But if you can provide the citation, I'll certainly reconsider.
-
As eloquently argued by Durant, both racism and sexism were central to evolution:
‘Darwin introduced his discussion of psychology in the Descent by reasserting his commitment to the principle of continuity … [and] … Darwin rested his case upon a judicious blend of zoomorphic and anthropomorphic arguments. Savages, who were said to possess smaller brains and more prehensile limbs than the higher races, and whose lives were said to be dominated more by instinct and less by reason … were placed in an intermediate position between nature and man; and Darwin extended this placement by analogy to include not only children and congenital idiots but also women, some of whose powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation were “characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization”’ (Descent 1871:326–327).
Darwin’s theory may have reflected his personal attitudes toward women and non-Caucasian races. When Darwin was concerned that his son Erasmus might marry a young lady named Martineau, he wrote that if Erasmus married her he would not be:
‘… much better than her “nigger.”—Imagine poor Erasmus a nigger to so philosophical and energetic a lady … . Martineau had just returned from … America, and was full of married women’s property rights … . Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine … . We must pray for our poor “nigger” … Martineau didn’t become a Darwin.’
Among the more telling indications of Darwin’s attitudes toward women were the statements he penned as a young man, which listed what he saw as the advantages of marriage, including children and a
‘… constant companion, (friend in old age) who will feel interested in one, object to be beloved and played with—better than a dog anyhow—Home, and someone to take care of house—Charms of music and female chit-chat. These things good for one’s health (emphasis mine).’
The major intellectual justification Darwin offered for his conclusions about female inferiority was found in The Descent of Man. In this work, Darwin argued that the ‘adult female’ in most species resembled the young of both sexes, and also that ‘males are more evolutionarily advanced than females.’ Since female evolution progressed slower then male evolution, a woman was ‘in essence, a stunted man.’ This view of women rapidly spread to Darwin’s scientific and academic contemporaries.
Darwin taught that the differences between men and women were due partly, or even largely, to sexual selection. A male must prove himself physically and intellectually superior to other males in the competition for females to pass his genes on, whereas a woman must only be superior in sexual attraction. Darwin also concluded that ‘sexual selection depended on two different intraspecific activities: the male struggle with males for possession of females; and female choice of a mate.’26 In Darwin’s words, evolution depended on ‘a struggle of individuals of one sex, generally males, for the possession of the other sex.’27
To support this conclusion, Darwin used the example of Australian ‘savage’ women who were the ‘constant cause of war both between members of the same tribe and distinct tribes,’ producing sexual selection due to sexual competition. Darwin also cited the North American Indian custom, which required the men to wrestle male competitors in order to retain their wives, to support his conclusion that ‘the strongest party always carries off the prize.’ Darwin concluded that as a result, a weaker man was ‘seldom permitted to keep a wife that a stronger man thinks worth his notice.’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/females.asp
That seems the definition of sexism today. Women are objectified sexually (pornagraphy, swim suit competitions, beauty pagents) and men must prove themselves physically (sports) and intellectually (business). How often do we see the cliche of a really ugly guy with a really great looking woman and think "he must be rich".
-
QUOTE = Originally posted by Daisy:
"You are conflating race with species so that you can maintain that to distinguish between species is the same as distinguishing between races."
Yes, specifically when done in accordance with a racial theory of human evolution out of Africa which grades, divides and classifies members of the human race into different "species" for the sole purpose of 'scientifically' grading their gradual subhuman evolution from ape-like and non-human creatures in Africa!
"The problem is that they are not the same thing, race and species; there are, or can be, races within the larger category of species."
That's merely an evolutionist hypothesis when applied to all members of the human race since only evolutionists theorize that the human race may be divided up "scientifically" into several distinct "species" for evolutionist purposes.
"You also want to confuse the original meaning of "racist" (ie. to categorize by race) with the modern, current meaning "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" and "prejudice or discrimination."
What was the "original meaning of "racist?" According to Professor Lubenow, Oxford had no entry under 'racism' prior to the 1940's. The important thing is to have a meaningful definition of 'race,' which Oxford suppies even though science does not.
"It would help if you would tell me exactly what definition of "racist" you are using since there is more than one."
I am using Oxford's definition of 'racism' which is based on their profound definition of race. I also accept the definitions and anaysis of scientific racism which Professor Lubenow makes in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention."
"What does Africa have to do with it?"
Theorizing that all members of the human race descended from non-human ape-like creatures in Africa in accordance with neo-Darwinist beliefs and "scientific" evidence is racist.
"Humans are apes, according to most evolutionary classifications, but are non-human apes "people"?"
Humans are classified as primates and hominids. Under what taxon do you think evolutionists have classified people as "apes?" How could non-humans ever be classified as people?
"Precisely what group of "people" is the theory of evolution "singling" out?"
All members of the human race which it catagorizes and grades as different "species" which gradually evolved from sub-human animals in Africa.
"Since the theory of evolution is all about the change in populations over time, changes are definitely studied - why do you consider that "racist"?"
Labeling some human populations more intelligent and human than others based on fossil skull shapes and cranial capacity for brain size is a form of scientific racism.
"I'm a bit confused here on your definitions. You say "racism is dependent", but you don't say what "racism" is or what you mean by it. That is germane to the discussion."
Yes. Racism is based on concepts and definitions of race. That's why I use Oxford when advocating Lubenow's thesis of the intrinsic racism inherent in neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution out of African primates in Africa.
"Are you defining "humankind" to extend beyond the species Homo sapiens?"
Of course. Even evolutionist theorists nowadays will concede that our Neandertal and Homo erectus cousins were much more human than ape-like.
"If so, how far beyond are you willing to go? I thought that "human" and "Homo sapiens" were synonymous, so if they are not I'm curious as to who all is included."
All so-called "species" classified by evolutionists under the genus of Homo must be at least half human, don't you think? This is the problem which evolutionists have. They seem to have difficulty distinguishing some members of the human race from the fossils of an extinct species of non-human ape-like creatures in Africa.
"Finally, what does "supremacy" have to do with the theory of evolution?"
Evolutionists think that their "scientific" theories of human evolution out of Africa are superior to the historical eye-witness accounts and testimonies of creationists. Thinking themselves being wiser Homo sapiens than other wise Homo sapiens, they also believe that their species is more intelligent than certain human beings whom they claim are direct descendents of non-human ape-like African creatures. -
So you're commenting on a book you've never read. Ok, but there's not much credibility in that.
'Eras was smitten, but Charles wondered about such a threatingingly assertive lady. 'Our only protection from so admirable a sister-in-law is in her working [Eras][sic] too hard. He begins to perceive ... he shall not be much better than her "nigger". - Imagine poor Erasmus a nigger to so philosophical & energetic a lady...She already takes him to task about his idleness...She is going some day to explain to him her notions about marriage - Perfect equality of rights is part of her doctrine. I much doubt whether it will be equality in practice. We must pray for our poor "nigger".'
That was the word used in that era and was not considered to be offensive at that time. Can you tell me who were most often enslaved at that time?
It is painfully obvious that it was his brother and not his son that Darwin and the authors of Darwin were referring to: "...In London [Charles Darwin] did have Eras for company. Or at least some of the time, for his brother was taken with that literary lioness Harriet Martineau. ...It might have been a meeting of minds, but neither expected much more. With her ear trumpet and his cleft palate, it was a surprise anything transpired, but they transcended their impediments and made perfect contact. She heard every word without her trumpet, and gratifying words they were: he praised her poor-law tales as the very epitiome of his views."
Why did your source lie?
That the trouble with quote-mining - it is too often used to distort the actual meaning of the original text.
-
a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger, but whether
or not proportionately to his larger body, has not, I believe, been
fully ascertained. In woman the face is rounder; the jaws and the base
of the skull smaller; the outlines of the body rounder, in parts
more prominent; and her pelvis is broader than in man;* but this
latter character may perhaps be considered rather as a primary than
a secondary sexual character.
The female, however, ultimately assumes certain
distinctive characters, and in the formation of her skull, is said
to be intermediate between the child and the man.
There are a number of such passages that make his prejudices clear. If you read that document you will see continuous racial comments with continuous assertion that each ethnic group is a separately evolved race.
The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is
shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes
up, than can woman- 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 both of 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 if men are
capable of a decided pre-eminence over women in many subjects, the
average of mental power in man must be above that of woman.
...
These latter faculties, as well as the former, will have been developed in man, partly through sexual selection,- that is, through the contest of rival males, and partly through natural selection, that is, from success in the general struggle for life; and as in both cases the struggle will have been during maturity, the characters gained will have been transmitted more fully to the male than to the female offspring. ... Thus, man has ultimately become superior to woman.
We see much racial prejudice as well. In the section labeled "CHAPTER II ON THE MANNER OF DEVELOPMENT OF MAN FROM SOME LOWER FORM" we see the following:
It is, nevertheless, an error to speak of man, even if we look only to the conditions to which he has been exposed, as "far
more domesticated"*(2) than any other animal. Some savage races, such as the Australians, are not exposed to more diversified conditions than are many species which have a wide range. In another and much more important respect, man differs widely from any strictly domesticated animal; for his breeding has never long been
controlled, either by methodical or unconscious selection.
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
This makes perfect sense as Darwin blamed God for the death of his daughter. -
"Let me ask you a brief question. Can selection add anything to the genome? "
Strawman.
Mutation adds variety to the genome. Selection tends to remove the harmful and preserve the beneficial. You cannot separate them.
BTW, when can we expect from you a qunatifiable definition of information that allows us to judge whether certain processes add to the information of the genome or not?
I keep asking ( http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67.html#000009 , http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67/2.html#000015 ) and you keep dodging.
Maybe you can answer my criticism of how even your favorite information hobby horse, Gitt, uses "information" in such a way that mutations are new information.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/67/2.html#000016
[ July 12, 2005, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ] -
You say the evolutionists divide the human race into species and you maintain to do that is racist - that dividing a race into species is racist. It seems speciesist to me, but you say you are using Oxford's definition of "racist". What is Oxford's definition? Please spell it out, preferably in its own words.
The evolutionists themselves maintain that they are dividing the order into genera, genus into species. Within species may be race, but race is not a solid division as that line may be freely crossed whereas the uncrossibility of species is what makes a species a species.
According to Columbia Encyclopedia (<--linkie):
"Estimates of the amount of identical genetic material (DNA) in chimpanzees and humans range from 94.6% to 99.4%. This marked similarity, and additional evidence, have led primatologists to suggest that the taxonomy of the apes should include three groups: hylobatidae (gibbons and siamangs); pongidae (orangutangs); and hominidae (gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans). Apes are classified in the phylum Chordata, subphylum Vertebrata, class Mammalia, order Primates."
What IS the definition?
-
QUOTE = Originally posted by Daisy:
"The racial aspect seems to be yours and not part of the actual theory which generally classifies race as a variant within a species."
The racial aspect of theories of human evolution which Lubenow has discovered as demonstrated and documented in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention" are to his credit, not mine since I am merely using his well-documented thesis as a basis for my own comments on the intrinsic racism inherent in all theories of human evolution.
"You say the evolutionists divide the human race into species and you maintain to do that is racist - that dividing a race into species is racist. It seems speciesist to me, but you say you are using Oxford's definition of "racist". What is Oxford's definition? Please spell it out, preferably in its own words."
Don't you have an Oxford or other good dictionary on hand to look up the meanings of the words, racist, racism, racial and race?
"The evolutionists themselves maintain that they are dividing the order into genera, genus into species."
Don't forget family. Without the family taxon of Hominidae there wouldn't be any evolutionist hominids or human sub-species like Homo sapiens sapiens or early Homo sapiens.
"Within species may be race, but race is not a solid division as that line may be freely crossed whereas the uncrossibility of species is what makes a species a species."
Dividing and classifying members of the human race into different species though, is a form of scientific racism, according to Lubenow and Oxford.
"Ok, when is the first entry of 'race' in Oxford? Please give the definition of 'race' and 'racist' according to Oxford. If you don't supply it, then it is useless to refer to it."
Kinda limiting and defining the terms of our discussion and debate and demanding a lot of work from me there, aren't you? I don't demand that you supply and type up entries of dictionary definitions for words you use.
"Why Africa? Would it cease to be "racist" if the theory used Europe or Asia instead of Africa?"
No.
"It's looking more and more like it isn't the theory that is racist."
What dictionary are you using to define racist?
"This marked similarity, and additional evidence, have led primatologists to suggest that the taxonomy of the apes should include hominidae (gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans.)"
Associating and including any humans in a taxonomic family of gorillas and chimps is racist though, at least according to Lubenow and Oxford. European decendents shouldn't associate indigenous and aboriginal African people with gorillas and chimps IMHO, since it describes and pictures them as physically resembling those sub-human creatures.
"Can you demonstrate that current evolutionary theory divides human populations by race and theorizes on their respective intelligence?
Of course but if you are not familiar with good dictionary defintions of race and racism plus Lubenow's thesis on the intrinsic racism inherent in human evolutionism, it may take hours of typing.
"So share it already. What IS the definition?"
All right. For your sake, Daisy, I shall type up the complete entries for race, racial, racialism and racism according to the entries in the American Edition of The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus published in New York and Oxford by the Oxford University Press in 1996.
(Excluding of course any entries pertaining to a contest of speed between runners, horses, dogs, vehicles or ships) -
QUOTE = Originally posted by Daisy:
"What is Oxford's definition? Please spell it out, preferably in its own words. Please give the definition of 'race' and 'racist' according to Oxford. If you don't supply it, then it is useless to refer to it."
Dictionary entries for definitions of terms in The American Edition of the The Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus published in New York and Oxford by the Oxford University Press in 1996:
Race: noun.
1 each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
2 a tribe, nation, etc., regarded as a distinct ethnic stock.
3 the fact or concept of division into races (discrimination based on race).
4 a genus, species, breed or variety of animals, plants or micro-organisms.
5 a group of persons, animals or plants connected by common descent.
6 any great division of living creatures (the feathered race, the four-footed race).
7 descent; kindred (of noble race; separate in language and race).
8 a class of persons etc., with some common feature (the race of poets).
1 and 2 include and refer to stock, tribe, nation, people, folk, clan and family.
7 includes and refers to blood, descent, breed, kin, kindred, family, stock, line and lineage.
8 see CLASS, noun.
racial: adjective.
1 of or concerning race (racial diversities; racial minority).
2 on the grounds of or connected with difference in race (racial discrimination; racial tension).
racialism: noun. = RACISM
racism: noun.
1a a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.
b antagonism toward other races, especially as a result of this.
2 the theory that human abilities, etc., are determined by race.
1 includes and refers to racialism, apartheid, jim crowism, chauvinism and bigotry.
racist: (noun). see SUPREMACIST.
(adjective). racialist, prejudiced, chauvinistic, bigoted. -
The female, however, ultimately assumes certain distinctive characters, and in the formation of her skull, is said to be intermediate between the child and the man.</font>[/QUOTE]That is descriptive, not sexist. Physical and tempermental differences do exist. Men in their prime generally are bigger and more aggressive than women in their prime. Do you think it is sexist to acknowledge those differences and to try to determine the causes?
Race is tied to ethnicity, is it not? "Race" is still considered to be inherited while "ethnicity" is cultural. More is known now than was known then about both race and culture.
What do you mean by "separately evolved"? How do you think differences in populations occur?
-
-
shewn by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes
up, than can woman- whether requiring deep thought, reason, or
imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.
You don't find this sexist? Darwin's point was that a bigger brain = higher intelligence, reason, and cognitive abilities. He states that a man can - or is able - to be more intelligent than a woman can - or is able - to be. If you don't find that sexist, then you do so because of your faith in evolution rather than the obvious evidence here.
Rom 1:17For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
You can see clearly the context for this scripture is all about perverting one's faith in God with man's opinions. It's all about men attributing God's authority and role as Creator to the creation itself rather than to God. This is exactly what evolution has done. This is exactly what Darwin attempted to do.
Darwin’s biographer James Moore makes it clear that this tragedy destroyed the truth of Christianity in Darwin’s mind. How could there be a good God if He allowed this to happen? Instead, Darwin decided that Annie was an unfortunate victim of the laws of nature, i.e. she lost the struggle for existence.
Annie’s death raised serious questions about God’s goodness, but the prevailing view of Darwin’s day—that the earth was old and had long been filled with death and violence—provided no adequate answers.
Article2
Article3
Page 1 of 4