Racist statements like these annoy me deeply. Okay, Daniel~, I’m over in the Pit. And P.S. bring your search engine… 
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57167
You can’t be serious. Darwin would be protested and hounded off any university campus today.
I didn’t say you were. I was merely quashing any possible and perhaps even reasonable assumption that I was, thus tainting the legitimacy of my argument.
It does make more sense grammatically, however I find no change in the sense that was provided in the first place.
To suggest that I did the pruning is akin to suggesting that I am dishonest. I therefore felt compelled to defend my honour and do a google search(negro australian gorilla) for the reference that I once had before me on the screen when I copied the particular phrase noting full well it could be controversial in future exchanges and that I had to be prepared to back it up. I found several locations using the same phrasing although with three or four extra periods after the word apes. One location is at http://killdevilhill.com/darwinchat/messages2/3431.html. If my integrity is of concern to you then by all means check it out.By the way, was your punctuation error following the word* remarked* in your quotation deliberate?
Well dude, isn’t that what I said?
And now finally** Atarian** I direct you to my first post in this thread . Go to the very last line of my post where I qualify Darwin’s racism in the context of the time. And then come back and apologise.
speaking to anyone who will listen
**IMHO, the attitude towards the black man reached its lowest point following Darwin’s publications.**It was at least fortunate that the emancipation in America occured previously, because the sense of the black man as cursed under Ham deteriorated even further to comparison with the apes. To be sure. Darwin’s views were much more benevolent, but some of his racist ideas were expanded upon to ridiculous extremes, even by Creationists like my grandfather. I find that perplexing when I look back to his attitude only 40 years ago, and wonder if one believes we are all descended from Adam, then what justification is there to compare negroes to apes which he often did when relating his stories of visits to Africa.
The poor situation in subSaharan Africa today is largely blamed on the colonial period. Notwithstanding the Dutch settlement in South Africa, I wonder if it is just coincidental that Europeans, particularly the British (Darwin’s country) found it neccessary to administrate regions of the continent, shortly after Darwin’s publications when there was really no significant return for the home country or reasonable expectation for white settlement, and readily abandoned after the second world war. Darwin was a racist, mildly in comparison to the immediate racist response, but quite seriously by standards of today.
Upon immediate review my suspicion of punctuation error was unfounded. My apologies.
Ta very much. I accept them with grace.
Now…
Your first post in this thread was:
(My Italics)
Why exactly should I be apologising?
You do not qualify his racism at all in terms of time, you simply stated it as a fact. I’m fairly certain this was your first post in the thread, if not, I apologise and ask that you direct me to it.
I direct you to the last line of my post of Jan 24, 12:31 am
Those who are interested in a new collection of information about Hovind may want to visit Analysis of Kent Hovind.
grienspace, this discussion has wandered far from the examination of Hovind’s idiocy, but I simply cannot allow your grievous errors in reasoning to go unchallenged. You continue to smear Darwin with the charge of racism, yet I don’t think you understand the definition of the word. Look it up here and educate thyself.
Simply theorizing that a biological basis for the differences between races might exist does not make one racist, especially in the 19th century when the data to make such a determination does not yet exist. Avail yourself of this hint – you must believe in the inherent superiority of a race due to these supposed biological differences in order to be classified as a racist.
Once again, did Darwin believe the Caucasian to be superior? Possibly, but the quote you provided does not come near to proving your claim. He implies a slightly closer relationship between Negroes and gorillas, from which you have taken the illogical leap of inferring his belief in superiority, but it is not necessarily so. Had he claimed that one breed of dog was more closely related to wolves than another, would you automatically assume he considered one to be better?
I think you might want to dust off that crystal ball and gaze a little deeper, Karnac. You have no idea how ridiculous this assertion sounds. One of the most influential scientists of the past 200 years would not be welcome at present day universities.:rolleyes: You might be right – at Oral Roberts, Bob Jones, or Liberty University.
Were he to hold to a theory of a closer relationship between blacks and gorillas in the face of present day evidence to the contrary, then I agree he would likely stand accused of racism. You have no reasonable cause to suggest this to be the case.
As to your feeble soliliquy designed to disparage Darwin for the sins of his countrymen, I cannot respond with anything remotely portraying my revulsion. Even if anyone were to have used his theories to promote their own campaign of evil, this has no bearing whatsoever on Darwin, his theories, or the charge of racism. That we are even having this debate is a sad testament to the influence of Hovind and his ilk.
Can I suggest that maybe we’re all violently in agreement here?
Hovind suggests that Darwin was a racist.
Some posters suggest that this is a lie.
Some other posters say, “well, if Darwin held the same beliefs today, he would be considered a racist - that’s probably where Hovind’s coming from.”
First posters say, “How dare you accuse a great scientist of racism?!”
Thread goes downhill from there.
In particular, both grienspace and I have agreed that creationists who bring up the “Darwin was a racist” argument are simply trying to deflect examination of the real problems with their beliefs.
Darwin was a great man, who was nevertheless a product of his times. If he had been born in our era, he would still be a great man, but a different one. If he were magically transported to our era and allowed to go running around on college campuses without any orientation as to what people have learned since his time… well, equality of races would probably be the last thing on his mind, given the differences in how students dress nowadays.
Can we go back to Hovind’s “challenge” now?
Excellent analysis ENugent, and excellent summary as well. Now where were we?
I concur ENugent (and grienspace) and wholeheartedly agree we should return this hijacked thread to its originally scheduled topic. 
JonF said:
How new is that site? I might want to post it in Skeptic News.
Pretty darned new, as far as I can tell … the author mentioned it in a post on t.o recently, I haven’t seen any reference to it elsewhere, I haven’t stumbled across it before, it says at the top it’s a first draft, and there are no entries in the guest book.