Suffragettes-Martha-WashingtonPicture of women, whom Darwin considered to be a “lower state of civilisation.”

Charles Darwin and his followers believed that women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men.

This from ‘THE DESCENT OF MAN AND SELECTION IN RELATION TO SEX’, BY Charles Darwin:

“Difference in the Mental Powers of the two Sexes. – With respect to differences of this nature between man and woman, it is probable that sexual selection has played a highly important part.  I am aware that some writers doubt whether there is any such inherent difference;  but this is at least probable from the analogy of the lower animals which present other secondary sexual characters.  No one disputes that the bull differs in disposition from the cow, the wild-boar from the sow, the stallion from the mare, and, as is well known to the keepers of menageries, the males of the larger apes from the females.  Woman seems to differ from man in mental disposition, chiefly in her greater tenderness and less selfishness; and this holds good even with savages, as shewn by a well-known passage in Mungo Park’s Travels, and by statements made by many other travellers.  Woman, owing to her maternal instincts, displays these qualities towards her infants in an eminent degree; therefore it is likely that she would often extend them towards her fellow-creatures.  Man is the rival of other men; he delights in competition, and this leads to ambition which passes too easily into selfishness.  These latter qualities seem to be his natural and unfortunate birthright.  It is generally admitted that with woman the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and lower state of civilisation.

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.”

But you can safely ignore Charles Darwin and his train of devotees, like the rather unpleasant Gustave Le Bon, who was a founder of social psychology, because these guys were dead wrong about evolution.  Back in 1895 Le Bon wrote (La psychologie des foules, 1895)

“In the most intelligent races, as among the Parisians, there are a large number of women whose brains are closer in size to those of gorillas than to the most developed male brains.  This inferiority is so obvious that no one can contest it for a moment; only its degree is worth discussion.  All psychologists who have studied the intelligence of women, as well as poets and novelists, recognize today that they represent the most inferior forms of human evolution and that they are closer to children and savages than to an adult, civilized man.  They excel in fickleness, inconstancy, absence of thought and logic, and incapacity to reason.  Without doubt there exist some distinguished women, very superior to the average man, but they are as exceptional as the birth of any monstrosity, as for example, of a gorilla with two heads; consequently, we may neglect them entirely.”

And if you very intelligent women out there think Mssrs. Darwin and Le Bon are a little too puffed up with hot air in these quotes above, it would not hurt to apply the wonderful minds God has given you to study the actual data that backs the purported ‘science‘ of evolution, upon which these guys based their notions about your inferior intellect.  Engage your fine intellects to examine the empirical evidence for creation versus evolution, and you will realize how much hot air, rhetoric and appeal to ‘authority’ holds up this religious belief in evolution.

Faith in God the Creator certainly is religious.  When you rise above the constant barrage of ‘proofs’ of evolution, that go poof without fanfare, you’ll see the story of evolution requires billions upon billions of miracles, stuff we do not see, never have seen and imagined scenarios (microscopic changes purported to have happened in unknown places in vague unknown times) stories that defy all known laws of physics and chemistry.  But the magic words of Poof, poof are TIME.  And if your guru has the degrees and the chanting assent of the choir, he/she is allowed to invoke time, as many millions or billions of years as wanted for an imagined evolutionary scenario.  Aren’t miracles the stuff of religion?  Evolution requires miracles and belief, Christianity is based on faith in an all-powerful, miracle-working Creator God.

Which faith is based on observable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable, verifiable hard data?  Which religious belief system best matches what you know, what you can test with the five senses?  Bible-believers were not present some six to ten thousand years ago, when God spoke the world into being, ………conversely, evolutionists were not present at any of their imagined beginnings to which they assign billions and millions of years of evolutionary processes.  BOTH ARE RELIGIOUS, belief systems.

But evolution will not stand up to intelligent scrutiny, which is why there is so much suppression of the men and women of science who point out that Emperor Evolution has no clothing to cover his nakedness.

There is about as much ‘science’ in the ever-shifting, just-so-stories of goo to you by way of the zoo, as there is substance in a pair of nylons that just walked through a BC blackberry patch.

(By Gerda, who is not a feminist in the rather harsh, unpleasant manner of women who feel the need to denigrate men, in order to elevate the female half of humanity.  But rather is one who knows the Lord God created all of us in His own image.  In the light of His presence all of us, men and women are elevated.)

FOOTNOTE:  Got this delightful response from a medical doctor in the States:  “BTW, Chuck’s wife was fluent in 3 languages and was an accomplished pianist.”   [‘Chuck’ being Charles Darwin, of course.]

Another reader responds with,..“He may have been a brilliant biologist but he sure was a sexist man of his time.”

Yes, Charles Darwin was “a man of his time”, just as we are ALL men or women of our time.  This means that we grow up exposed to certain ways of thinking.  But it does not mean that we can completely avoid blame for the views that we adopt.  We are not deterministically shaped so that the views we adopt are inevitable.   We must all take responsibility for the formation of our own views and opinions, especially as adults.  Thus Darwin is fully culpable for whatever false or inappropriate views he espoused and published.  – Gerda

 
Advertisements