Why Isn't Darwin Banned from Schools and Libraries?

[blastoff]

Right off hand, I see no need to ban Charles Darwin from schools and libraries.


He's dead.

Ah, but the Darwin Award lives on!

 

[mdk]

Most of the letters I’ve recevied about banning books were concerns over offensive lagnauge or sexually explicit, but there are a whole host of other whiny reason given. These letters come from all over the political spectrum as well.

 

[TNHarley]

Little House on the Prairie, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, Uncle Toms Cabin.... all racist and offensive according to the Left.

YET:

Darwin and his evolutionary ideas, the awful depiction of Australian Aborigines and people from Africa being closer to apes than light-skinned people, should be immediately banned from schools, libraries, etc.

In the 1900s, public schools students in America were shockingly taught, based on Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy), that the “Caucasians” were supposedly the “highest” “race.” In this age of political correctness, why is there not outcry about Darwin's books?

No books should be banned; over time they become historical pieces.
BTW, The Origin of Species is the one that still applies today, more or less.

That white people are more advanced than blacks?

No clear understanding as to why trumpanzees get labeled racist. It's a puzzlement.

Oh, so, darwin was a trumpanzee? Link?

 

[LuckyDuck]

Little House on the Prairie, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, Uncle Toms Cabin.... all racist and offensive according to the Left.

YET:

Darwin and his evolutionary ideas, the awful depiction of Australian Aborigines and people from Africa being closer to apes than light-skinned people, should be immediately banned from schools, libraries, etc.

In the 1900s, public schools students in America were shockingly taught, based on Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy), that the “Caucasians” were supposedly the “highest” “race.” In this age of political correctness, why is there not outcry about Darwin's books?

View attachment 201690 View attachment 201691 View attachment 201692 View attachment 201693

When it came to race issues, Darwin was a product of his era. However, when it came to evolution, he was ahead of his time. The study of evolution is important enough to keep his works in schools and libraries, whereas so-called holy books are the real trash.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Most of the letters I’ve recevied about banning books were concerns over offensive lagnauge or sexually explicit, but there are a whole host of other whiny reason given. These letters come from all over the political spectrum as well.

And no one finds saying whites are superior to blacks offensive?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Little House on the Prairie, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, Uncle Toms Cabin.... all racist and offensive according to the Left.

YET:

Darwin and his evolutionary ideas, the awful depiction of Australian Aborigines and people from Africa being closer to apes than light-skinned people, should be immediately banned from schools, libraries, etc.

In the 1900s, public schools students in America were shockingly taught, based on Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy), that the “Caucasians” were supposedly the “highest” “race.” In this age of political correctness, why is there not outcry about Darwin's books?

View attachment 201690 View attachment 201691 View attachment 201692 View attachment 201693

When it came to race issues, Darwin was a product of his era. However, when it came to evolution, he was ahead of his time. The study of evolution is important enough to keep his works in schools and libraries, whereas so-called holy books are the real trash.

Product of his era?

Filed under “Little House on the Prairie”

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I've never seen a book by Darwin in a school library. Nor have I ever heard of a school teacher assigning a Darwin book to read.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Also, my mother is an elementary school teacher and librarian - and Tom Sawyer, To Kill A Mockingbird and Little House on the Prarie are all on the shelves.

She teaches in Park Slope, in Brooklyn.

 

[OldLady]

Little House on the Prairie, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, Uncle Toms Cabin.... all racist and offensive according to the Left.

YET:

Darwin and his evolutionary ideas, the awful depiction of Australian Aborigines and people from Africa being closer to apes than light-skinned people, should be immediately banned from schools, libraries, etc.

In the 1900s, public schools students in America were shockingly taught, based on Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy), that the “Caucasians” were supposedly the “highest” “race.” In this age of political correctness, why is there not outcry about Darwin's books?

View attachment 201690 View attachment 201691 View attachment 201692 View attachment 201693

Be patient. Just a little more Republican gerrymandering required.

A list of books currently banned by the Left in various sites was provided in the OP.


Your attempt to turn this around, fails.

All book banning is stupid. I was simply answering the question posed in the title.

 

[Syriusly]

Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy),]

Darwinian evolution- i.e. the first published theory of the scientific theory of evolution is not a philosophy.

Only those who believe in the inherently racist philosophies of the Creationists would think so.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I've never seen a book by Darwin in a school library. Nor have I ever heard of a school teacher assigning a Darwin book to read.

That’s because you’ve never been in a library nor have ever listened to an instructor.

 

[Syriusly]

Little House on the Prairie, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, Uncle Toms Cabin.... all racist and offensive according to the Left.

YET:

Darwin and his evolutionary ideas, the awful depiction of Australian Aborigines and people from Africa being closer to apes than light-skinned people, should be immediately banned from schools, libraries, etc.

In the 1900s, public schools students in America were shockingly taught, based on Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy), that the “Caucasians” were supposedly the “highest” “race.” In this age of political correctness, why is there not outcry about Darwin's books?

View attachment 201690 View attachment 201691 View attachment 201692 View attachment 201693

I find it fascinating that this is being passed off as a 'racist' statement by Darwin.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy),]

Darwinian evolution- i.e. the first published theory of the scientific theory of evolution is not a philosophy.

Only those who believe in the inherently racist philosophies of the Creationists would think so.

You consider Darwin’s book to be science?

 

[Syriusly]

I've never seen a book by Darwin in a school library. Nor have I ever heard of a school teacher assigning a Darwin book to read.

That’s because you’ve never been in a library nor have ever listened to an instructor.

And you know this how- the same way you know that the Earth was created in 6 days?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I've never seen a book by Darwin in a school library. Nor have I ever heard of a school teacher assigning a Darwin book to read.

That’s because you’ve never been in a library nor have ever listened to an instructor.

I've spent more time in school libraries than you've spent whining about liberals on the internet.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Little House on the Prairie, To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, Uncle Toms Cabin.... all racist and offensive according to the Left.

YET:

Darwin and his evolutionary ideas, the awful depiction of Australian Aborigines and people from Africa being closer to apes than light-skinned people, should be immediately banned from schools, libraries, etc.

In the 1900s, public schools students in America were shockingly taught, based on Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy), that the “Caucasians” were supposedly the “highest” “race.” In this age of political correctness, why is there not outcry about Darwin's books?

View attachment 201690 View attachment 201691 View attachment 201692 View attachment 201693

I find it fascinating that this is being passed off as a 'racist' statement by Darwin.

Of course you would.

 

[Syriusly]

Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy),]

Darwinian evolution- i.e. the first published theory of the scientific theory of evolution is not a philosophy.

Only those who believe in the inherently racist philosophies of the Creationists would think so.

You consider Darwin’s book to be science?

Darwin's book was certainly the presentation of a scientific theory.

A book is not science. Even a book on physics is not science- it is a book.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I've never seen a book by Darwin in a school library. Nor have I ever heard of a school teacher assigning a Darwin book to read.

That’s because you’ve never been in a library nor have ever listened to an instructor.

I've spent more time in school libraries than you've spent whining about liberals on the internet.

Surfing porn does not qualify as library time.

 

[mdk]

Most of the letters I’ve recevied about banning books were concerns over offensive lagnauge or sexually explicit, but there are a whole host of other whiny reason given. These letters come from all over the political spectrum as well.

And no one finds saying whites are superior to blacks offensive?

Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying. Spot on.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Darwinian evolution (an inherently racist philosophy),]

Darwinian evolution- i.e. the first published theory of the scientific theory of evolution is not a philosophy.

Only those who believe in the inherently racist philosophies of the Creationists would think so.

You consider Darwin’s book to be science?

Darwin's book was certainly the presentation of a scientific theory.

A book is not science. Even a book on physics is not science- it is a book.

Like Little House on the Prairie?