The Theory of Evolution is Racism

The definitions certainly apply and add a little more depth to the ugliness of Racism, however I would like to add that my contentions are unaffected by the more detailed definitions. I would like to clarify some things. I should have not assumed everyone was on the same page with the definition of Race, though my opponent certainly appears to understand the below definition. Note: It is not purely a difference in skin pigmentation or "always" pertaining to geographic location in modern history. Definition(s) of Race; 1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies. 2. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. 3. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: . http://education.yahoo.com... The Logical conclusion of Evolutionary Theory equates to Racism. .. .. .. AS opposed to other "Existence Theories" I don't believe my opponent has rebuttal this contention. I would like to offer some hope for those that see the logic in Evolutionary Theory as it pertains to racism. There are other acceptable Theories, though many are not as readily accepted by the scientific community. A case in point would be Intelligent Design or Creationism. This Theory would certainly assume the obvious differences in humans, however it does not suggest a possible change in species, so it can not be counted as racism. The defining difference between existence theories is Evolutionary Theory claims a species change can occur. Why is this important? A good example is mankind's views on dogs. Dogs do not have equal rights with humans. An Intelligent Design subscriber can justify this with morals derived from the Deity he/she accepts. Evolutionary Theory subscribers, however, can only justify their right to rule over the dog with the belief they are simply more evolved. I understand some individuals can subscribe to Evolutionary Theory and a Deity, though I would argue that the two beliefs are generally in conflict with each other, so I will now move on. Evolutionary Theory itself claims natural causation of existence. A dog can exercise his dominion over a rabbit. A dog can exercise its rule over a weaker or less intelligent dog with-out natural government. Taking this natural logic one would understand that a man with a higher aptitude or evolution can exercise his dominion over the weaker or less evolved. Intelligent Design would suggest that all men have rights endowed by the Creator, while as evolution suggest rights are only endowed by the more evolved. This is the natural logic that most individuals with a significant understanding of Evolutionary Theory have used to arrive at very racial views. I contend that those familiar with Evolutionary Theory and don't publicly proclaim to be Racist simply do so to avoid conflict with society and mankind's government. This is why my last two contentions are not a Genetic Fallacy. Example of a genetic fallacy From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 36: '["You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice. " There may be reasons why people may not wish to wear wedding rings, but it would be logically inappropriate for a couple to reject the notion of exchanging wedding rings on the sole grounds of its alleged sexist origins. ]' Well first let me say this about genetic fallacy. .. .it is generally an argument against ignorance. In the above example, while the individual doesn't wear a wedding ring for the original intent wedding rings were worn, they are usually ignorant of the history. None the less the example is a genetic fallacy because the reason they choose to wear wedding rings has nothing to do with its past history. If I changed the argument and said "You believe men are better than women and men have a right to do whatever they want to women. Why do you subscribe to that sexist belief? " The above is not a genetic fallacy because the man in the example DOES subscribe to the belief while as the other argument was simply attacking wearing wedding rings, not the sexist belief. Evolutionary Theory is a belief system, you can choose to accept it or deny it. My opponent offers the below example of a genetic fallacy [An] example of this type of fallacy occurs when capitalists attack Marx's arguments against capitalism by pointing out that Marx himself lived off the money provided by his wealthy friend Friedrich Engles. Whether … Marxism is a reasonable position has nothing to do with the lives of those who present the ideas. " The above is a genetic fallacy, however if the capitalist argument was when you take Marxism and apply its principles it will lead to economic failure, it is no longer a genetic fallacy. My debate suggest if you take Evolutionary Theory and all it claims to be you ultimately have justification for racism, which is not a genetic fallacy. The quotes I presented the debate audience, from prominent Evolutionist, were simply their practical understanding of Evolutionary Theory. Cause . .. . Effect.