Is Evolution Racist?

[shernren]

continued from the Creationist sub-forum thread of the same name, since there's debative discussion brewing.

...

I guess I wasn't clear enough with what I was saying; I should have started with assuming evolution is true, it still isn't racist. Evolution merely asserts a particular historical order of events; what significance evolutionists want to assign to that historical order is their private business and reflects nothing good or bad about evolution itself.

The Chinese invented gunpowder before the Europeans. If a historian says "That shows that Chinese are violent people!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact.

The Malays were the first immigrants to come to my country Malaysia. If a historian says "That shows that the Malays have a venturesome spirit!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact.

Evolution observes / predicts that humans first came out of Africa. If an evolutionist says "That shows that the Africans are primitive!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact: only evidence one way or the other does.

 

[FreezBee]

Evolution observes / predicts that humans first came out of Africa. If an evolutionist says "That shows that the Africans are primitive!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact: only evidence one way or the other does.

Hi shernren;

I haven't read the posts in the subforum (there are way too many ), so I may not fully understand, what this is about. But from your post here, I agree with you. One thing is historical evidence, another thing is turning that into a statement about certain people.

As for the part I have quoted above, if all humans today are descended from humans in Africa, then any statement about descendents of those humans based solely on that evidence is a statement about all descendents. That is, if the first humans were primitive, and that primitiveness is tied to genealogy, then all humans are primitive. If you moved from Malaysia to, say, Japan, your genes would not change solely based on that, would they?

So, as you seem to imply, we cannot base a statement about current African people on the evidence for an African origin of humans any more than we can base the statement on people elsewhere, because they have descended from the same original humans as are current Africans.


The theory of evolution is in itself not racist - the special variant called "genetic reductionism" can be. By original definition, a race is a genetically closed group of people - but in societies with very steep class differences, social classes tend to be genetically closed, rich people marry rich people, and poor people marry poor people. But that you have a higher chance of becoming, say, rich because you have rich parents does not prove that you have "rich" genes. For humans, culture is a lot more important than genes - that's what I think at least

Our biology may be due to biological evolution, but society, and so on, is not due to biological evolution.


- FreezBee

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

continued from the Creationist sub-forum thread of the same name, since there's debative discussion brewing.

...

I guess I wasn't clear enough with what I was saying; I should have started with assuming evolution is true, it still isn't racist. Evolution merely asserts a particular historical order of events; what significance evolutionists want to assign to that historical order is their private business and reflects nothing good or bad about evolution itself.

The Chinese invented gunpowder before the Europeans. If a historian says "That shows that Chinese are violent people!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact.

The Malays were the first immigrants to come to my country Malaysia. If a historian says "That shows that the Malays have a venturesome spirit!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact.

Evolution observes / predicts that humans first came out of Africa. If an evolutionist says "That shows that the Africans are primitive!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact: only evidence one way or the other does.

Alternatively, one could conclude that Africans are the pure race because they didn't leave humanity's birthplace. Creationist assumptions were used to assert that God created the races seperate so we shouldn't mix them, but they could also point to a common father and mother as a reason to unite with all races. It just goes to show that racists will try to justify their racism with whatever system they have available.

 

[john crawford]

I guess I wasn't clear enough with what I was saying; I should have started with assuming evolution is true, it still isn't racist.

If we start with "assumptions" about theories of human evolution in Africa, then all assumptions about it may be considered to be equally valid as long as they remain only assumptions. Obviously, all of the various theoretical assumptions which the several Darwinist models of human evolution are premised on can't be equally validated or true.

Evolution merely asserts a particular historical order of events;

By asserting that human evolution occured in a particular historical order of 'speciation' events in Africa though, is inherently racist since of necessity, such speciation inherently involves varying degrees of raciation in order for a 'species' of human beings to speciate at all.

what significance evolutionists want to assign to that historical order is their private business and reflects nothing good or bad about evolution itself.

That's a rather naive point of view considering the fact that all publicized versions of evolutionist theory start out as personal and private investigations before being published and incorporated into the general public's knowledge concerning various aspects of evolutionist theory.

The Chinese invented gunpowder before the Europeans. If a historian says "That shows that Chinese are violent people!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact.

Now you are comparing apples and oranges by equating assumptions and theories concerning human evolution in Africa with the "historical fact" of Chinese invention of gunpowder.

The Malays were the first immigrants to come to my country Malaysia. If a historian says "That shows that the Malays have a venturesome spirit!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact.

If the historian publishes that the Malays replaced all the other indigenous people which inhabited your country before they migrated there, and all other tribes, racial groups or 'species' eventually became extinct after the Malay's immigration to your country, that would seem to be a rather racially prejudiced and bigoted historical version concerning the original inhabitants, wouldn't you say?

Evolution observes / predicts that humans first came out of Africa.

Leave out the "observation" part and the prediction that humans first came out of Africa only after originating from African apes is an inherently racial theory concerning the origins of not only African people but other racial groups within the present and past human race.

If an evolutionist says "That shows that the Africans are primitive!" that's his/her business. That doesn't affect the validity of the historical fact: only evidence one way or the other does.

Since the word 'primitive' was originally invented and defined by anthropologists who regarded themselves as superior to those people they defined, identified and publically announced as being 'primitive,' such opinions may no longer be regarded as private or personal business, but as public professions.

 

[john crawford]

Alternatively, one could conclude that Africans are the pure race because they didn't leave humanity's birthplace. Creationist assumptions were used to assert that God created the races seperate so we shouldn't mix them, but they could also point to a common father and mother as a reason to unite with all races. It just goes to show that racists will try to justify their racism with whatever system they have available.

Since we are only discussing the inherent racism in Darwinist THEORIES of human evolution, and not the racial bigotry or prejudice exhibited by any posters on the forum, it is incumbent upon Darwinist theorists to show how any human speciation is scientifically possible without some degree of raciation initially occuring within a human species since the evidence of raciation within a human species is obvious within our own.

Anyone who denies that Homo erectus did not evolve into several distinct racial groups throughout various parts of the world during it's supposed 1.5 million year life-span on earth, before a regional/racial group within Homo erectus or ergaster in Africa evolved into early Homo sapiens there, doesn't know much about Darwinist processes of genetic mutation, natural selection and human evolution in Africa or anywhere else.

 

[invisible trousers]

Hey john, are you going to actually provide any sort of evidence that evolution is racist besides "because I say so!"? This thread is your opportunity to show us articles and studies from scientific journals and that sort of thing.

I really hope you can provide something, because I've asked you in other threads to do exactly that yet you refuse or are unable to! Now is your chance to shine

I'll say that no, evolution is not racist. Obligatory talkorigins.org page on creationist claims...

Claim CA005:
Evolution promotes racism.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.
Response:

1. When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

2. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.

3. Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.

4. Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.

5. Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.

6. Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:

* George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,

The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became a blank.

In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to ne groes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).

* During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,

that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).

The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).

* The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.

* Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:

Sometimes the Hamites, especially the n egroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).

Links:
Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/racism.html
References:

1. Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_and_racism_response.htm
2. Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
3. Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
4. Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.

Further Reading:
Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.

Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html

 

[mzn11]

Evolution explains skin color rather nicely. They were merely adaptations to the specific environment, and that's all. So, race is merely the selection by the environment between, I believe, a set 8 genes. If anything, this shows the stupidity of racism.

 

[shernren]

If the historian publishes that the Malays replaced all the other indigenous people which inhabited your country before they migrated there, and all other tribes, racial groups or 'species' eventually became extinct after the Malay's immigration to your country, that would seem to be a rather racially prejudiced and bigoted historical version concerning the original inhabitants, wouldn't you say?

John, what you said was what actually happened (from the little I know of pre-Malaccan Asian history). Now the Malays are considered the indigenous people on the Malay Peninsula by official policy because barring a few aboriginal settlements remaining, they are the earliest humans here with an established sociocultural system and stable population.

So? Am I racially prejudiced and bigoted for having said exactly what you suggested? Not at all. I simply pointed out the historical fact: that the Malays displaced the aboriginals to become indigenous to this region, as compared to us Chinese and the Indians who came later. That is history. However, I did not proceed to say "This shows that the Malays are more primitive than the Chinese and the Indians", which would not have been a historical statement but a statement of opinion upon history.

It's the same with evolution and its "out of Africa" claim. If evolution is true, then the Africans were the first humans ever. Fullstop. If somebody says "that means they are the most primitive humans", well that's his/her business and that's not what evolution teaches, depending on what "primitive" is supposed to mean. If primitive is a quantitative chronological statement then yes, evolution says Africans are primitive. But if primitive is a sociocultural value judgment then no, evolution does not say that Africans are primitive. Got that?

I really don't understand the argument you are pushing here, John. What I'm hearing is something like this:

Evolution says the first humans were found in Africa.
Therefore evolution says that African humans are primitive.

Is that what you're saying? I don't think you would believe such a strange, gap-jumping argument so there must be something I've missed. What exactly do you mean by that word "raciation"? Is it racist to admit that different races exist?

And since creationism says that all humans came from Adam and Eve, who are Mediterranean humans, by natural selection: doesn't that mean that creationism similarly says that Mediterraneans are more primitive than other humans, by extension?

 

[shernren]

Evaluating any racial group or 'species' of human beings within the greater human race as being more biologically, culturally and intellectually evolved, or "smarter" is a common feature of Darwinist racial theories about the origins of the human race in Africa. After all, only the Homo sapiens species is catagorized as 'wise man.'

(from thread in Creationists')

If anything evolution would say that the Africans are the most evolved humans since they have been recognizably human the longest.

Or ... are you actually trying to say that evolution implies that Africans are not homo sapiens?????? O_O

 

[john crawford]

Hey john, are you going to actually provide any sort of evidence that evolution is racist besides "because I say so!"? This thread is your opportunity to show us articles and studies from scientific journals and that sort of thing.

There are a lot of websites and books on the inherent racism in Darwinist theories applied to the origins of the human race and various racial groups within it. What do you want me to do? List them all when you can google for "evolutionary racism" yourself?

I really hope you can provide something, because I've asked you in other threads to do exactly that yet you refuse or are unable to! Now is your chance to shine.

I regularly post as much evidence of Racial Darwinism as you post evidence of human evolution. You never take any of the points I make and discuss them, much less refute them. If you think you are posting evidence of human evolution by posting weblinks to talkorigins, you are sadly mistaken. What you need to do is take some small item which you think is evidence of human evolution from non-human apes in Africa and bring it to my attention for a discussion over what you think it is evidence of.

 

[john crawford]

Evolution explains skin color rather nicely.

Actually, melanin explains hair and skin color rather nicely. Evolution has nothing to do with it.
http://www.pg.com/science/skincare/Skin_tws_17.htm

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Since we are only discussing the inherent racism in Darwinist THEORIES of human evolution, and not the racial bigotry or prejudice exhibited by any posters on the forum, it is incumbent upon Darwinist theorists to show how any human speciation is scientifically possible without some degree of raciation initially occuring within a human species since the evidence of raciation within a human species is obvious within our own.

Anyone who denies that Homo erectus did not evolve into several distinct racial groups throughout various parts of the world during it's supposed 1.5 million year life-span on earth, before a regional/racial group within Homo erectus or ergaster in Africa evolved into early Homo sapiens there, doesn't know much about Darwinist processes of genetic mutation, natural selection and human evolution in Africa or anywhere else.

We are not discussing the evidence for or against evolution, rather whether evolution is racist. I pointed out that by being selective in what points to emphasize, a racist can twist almost anything to support his or her views.

 

[john crawford]

If primitive is a quantitative chronological statement then yes, evolution says Africans are primitive. But if primitive is a sociocultural value judgment then no, evolution does not say that Africans are primitive. Got that?

Of course. That's why I usually write "primitive" in quotes to show that I am using the term the way evolutionists do when they refer to the first African people who originated from non-human apes. The words prime, primate and primary are probably also etymologically derivative from the same root as primitive is.

I really don't understand the argument you are pushing here, John. What I'm hearing is something like this:

Evolution says the first humans were found in Africa.
Therefore evolution says that African humans are primitive.

Is that what you're saying?

Of course not. That's what you're hearing. Evolutionists say that the FIRST African people were primitive. Of course, they are not quite sure exactly who the first primitive African people were.
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

The First Humans: The Early Australopiths

[/font]
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By at least 4.4 million years ago in Africa, an apelike species had evolved that had two important traits, which distinguished it from other apes: (1) small canine (eye) teeth (next to the incisors, or front teeth) and (2) bipedalism--that is the ability to walk on two legs. Scientists commonly refer to these earliest human species as australopithecines, or australopiths for short.[/font]
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/faq/Encarta/encarta.htm

What exactly do you mean by that word "raciation"?

The process of raciation is similar to speciation insofar as it accounts for the origin and evolution of racial diversity within a species. Here's a reference to Vince Sarich on raciation:

Dr. Sarich said that what makes racial differences more functionally important is the "Out of Africa Model" not that of regional continuity. The reason is because the period of time involved in the raciation procedure is much shorter even though the degree of racial differentiation is apparently the same or larger. The smaller the amount of time required to create a given number of morphological difference, the more selectively significant the differences become.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/pqrst/sarich_vincent.html

Is it racist to admit that different races exist?

Of course not, although I prefer to use such terms as 'racial groups, racial variety, racial diversity, etc, within the 'human race.' The U.S. Census Bureau categorizes citizens as voluntarily self-identified 'races' though.

And since creationism says that all humans came from Adam and Eve, who are Mediterranean humans, by natural selection: doesn't that mean that creationism similarly says that Mediterraneans are more primitive than other humans, by extension?

I don't think creationists are in the business of calling any group of people primitive, let alone Adam and Eve or their early descendents. That's what professional anthropologists get paid to do. Btw; Most creationists I am aware of regard the world in which Adam and Eve lived as a lost continent, washed away forever during that cataclysmic world-upheaval known as the deluge.

 

[john crawford]

If anything evolution would say that the Africans are the most evolved humans since they have been recognizably human the longest.

That's why evolution may be said to be an inherently racist theory.

Or ... are you actually trying to say that evolution implies that Africans are not homo sapiens?????? O_O

No, that's just what you are projecting. I am saying that evolutionist theory implies that the original African people originated from non-human apes.

 

[john crawford]

We are not discussing the evidence for or against evolution, rather whether evolution is racist. I pointed out that by being selective in what points to emphasize, a racist can twist almost anything to support his or her views.

Yes, selective processes are at the heart of evolutionist theories pertaining to our racial origins, and so-called 'natural selection' is pointed to as being solely responsible for selecting particular human races and species for survival, while others are "naturally" selected for extinction.

 

[shernren]

No, that's just what you are projecting. I am saying that evolutionist theory implies that the original African people originated from non-human apes.

Oh! So that's what this is about. I see. I'm assuming that that statement sums up your theory about why evolutionism is racist? Because it says that the original Africans originated from non-human apes?

Firstly: Certain theories are true regardless of whether or not they are "racist". For example, the theory that "on average, Africans are better runners than humans of other races" is measurably demonstrable, whether or not you think that's insulting to other races. Ditto with evolution. As we discuss remember that even if evolution were racist that wouldn't affect whether it is true or not. Only evidence would.

Secondly: Evolution only says that about the original Africans, as you yourself has said. Evolution says that modern Africans are descended from humans, in the same way that any other human is.

Thirdly: As properly interpreted, evolution can actually be anti-racist by proposing a monophyletic origin for all humans. The easiest way to support racism biologically would be to show that humans have a polyphyletic origins, e.g. that while the rest of humanity is descended from apes, Americans are descended from, say, frogs in which case it would seem more biologically justifiable to say that there are fundamental genetic differences between Americans and the rest of us which renders them inherently inferior. (Seem, because evolution does not make value judgments about speciation / raciation origins; only people do.) However since evolution predicts species genetic characteristics for humanity in the case of polyphyletic origin and monophyletic origin, and finds the actual observations closer to a model of monophyletic origin, that sort of argument is actually countered by evolutionism.

Fourthly: Evolution does not make value judgments about origins; people do. If contrariwise evolution does make value judgments about origins we would expect to see that a majority of evolutionists are racists and a majority of racists are evolutionists. This is not borne out by actual experience. In actual experience it is possible to be an evolutionist without being a racist. On the other hand, it is possible to be an "anti-evolutionist" and yet be racist. For example, the Israelites interpreted their doctrines of election as God's people to mean that they were racially superior to the peoples of the world; and Christians used to take the Semitic involvement in Jesus' death and their subsequent rejection of the Gospel to mean that they were racially inferior to the peoples of the world.

I will acknowledge that people have used evolution to advocate racial discrimination. However, since many cases of racial discrimination have occurred without an evolutionary precedent, this demonstrates that the common factor is racist people, and not any racism inherent in evolutionism.

 

[FreezBee]

There are a lot of websites and books on the inherent racism in Darwinist theories applied to the origins of the human race and various racial groups within it. What do you want me to do? List them all when you can google for "evolutionary racism" yourself?

I've tried that! And the first page found was this:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/racism.asp

The title of the article is "Evolutionary racism", and it links a claimed increase in colonial racism Australia with the release of "The Origin of Species" in 1859.

Assuming this increase to be an actual fact and not just the prejudice of the author, what we have is a temporal coincidence.

A quote from the book's editor is given in the article:

‘In 1859 Charles Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species popularized the notion of biological (and therefore social) evolution. Scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with races able to ascend or descend a graduated scale. The European was … the “fittest to survive” … [The Aboriginal] was doomed to die out according to a “natural law”, like the dodo and the dinosaur. This theory, supported by the facts at hand [i.e. that Aborigines were dying out, which was due to ill-treatment and disease — C.W.] continued to be quoted until well into the twentieth century when it was noticed that the dark-skinned race was multiplying. Until that time it could be used to justify neglect and murder.’

This is true, but has nothing directly to do with evolution. Humans are one species, and there is no reason to assume the "graduated scale" mentioned in the quote. Biological differences between humans are superficial adaptations to the physical evironment and has nothing to do with cultural traits. That colonialism and evolution mixed in the mind of some people, that probably mostly were Christians, into something completely unscientific does not refute the theory of evolution.

And what about Biblical creationism? Isn't Genesis pretty racist? Cain's descendants were inferior to Seth's descendants, because Cain killed Abel. Also remember the description of Esau in Genesis 25:25:

"The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau."

Esau became the forefather of the Edomites, the inhabitants of Edom, south of Judah. Now, "edom" means "red" in Hebrew. Characteristic of the Edomite landscape is the red desert sand, and in the western parts of Edom there falls enough rain for the tops of the red sandstone cliffs to have trees on them. This area is called Se'ir, which means "hairy", and the cliiffs do look hairy with their vegetation. So the description of Esau is really just an ethnocentric joke, Judeans making fun of the Edomites by describing their (fictitious) forefather with terms that actually describe the Edomite landscape. But no way! This is the Bible, so this is simply the plain truth, isn't it?


- FreezBee

 

[disciple777]

There are a lot of websites and books on the inherent racism in Darwinist theories applied to the origins of the human race and various racial groups within it. What do you want me to do? List them all when you can google for "evolutionary racism" yourself?


I regularly post as much evidence of Racial Darwinism as you post evidence of human evolution. You never take any of the points I make and discuss them, much less refute them. If you think you are posting evidence of human evolution by posting weblinks to talkorigins, you are sadly mistaken. What you need to do is take some small item which you think is evidence of human evolution from non-human apes in Africa and bring it to my attention for a discussion over what you think it is evidence of.

I have not even looked at these websites. The following post reflects my personal convictions.

Talk about Racism and evolution!!!! Hitler was a very strong proponent of evolution of a superior Aryan Race. There is no need for me to describe the consequences. 6 million jews were slaughtered. Jews were considered to be a less than human race.

Hinduism is based on evolution that man undergoes spiritual evolution and becomes God. Mormons also believe that man can become God. Their belief is same as Hinduism.

Today, it is the followers of Christ who reach outside the boundaries of Racism. In India, there was a riot resulting in the massacre of thousands of hindus and muslims. It was the Christians who sympathised with the sad plight of Muslims and reached out to Muslims. Not only in India, but all across the world. Jim Elliott was a missionary to the Alka Indians. The native Indians murdered him. His wife Elizabeth Elliott had a burden for these cannibals. She volunteered to return to the natives and she spent many years among them. REsult was: all those men who murdered her husband became believers in Christ. In Christ, there is no Indian or white caucasian. We are all one in Christ. True Christians do not believe in Evolution. Because true Christians believe that they are all special creations of God, they have the highest regard for racial integration and unity.

After Katrina, it was only the christians who crossed the boundaries of racism to meet the needs of the victims. This included both white and Black americans.

All these are Followers of christ. There is a difference between those who claim to be christians and those who follow Christ. The true followers of Christ do not believe in Evolution. Our own constitution and bill of rights are based on this principle that we are all creations of God and all our rights come from God. This means no one race is superior to the other. We are all equal in the sight of God.

True followers of Christ believe in Creation. They do not practise Racism. They do not accept evolution.

"Rev" Jesse Jackson, "Rev" Al Sharpton and Louis Farakkhan are all confirmed Racists. I do not know what their position on evolution is. Perhaps, they have no position at all as this is beyond their understanding.

Consequences of believing in Evolution is there is no God. We evolved through naturalism. There is no right and wrong. There is no absolute. Everything is relative. There is no Truth. Everything depends on the situation. Truth is not the same for everyone. It varies from person to person. Then we become disrespectful of laws.The unborn has no life. Therefore, it is perfectly alright to Murder an innocent Unborn. Belief in Evolution also protects the Criminal and punishes the innocent as there is no right and wrong. The society becomes lawless. Ultimate result is Chaos.

On the other hand, belief in creation has the following benefits. There is respect for law and order. Morality is the basis for our personal lives, families and then the Society. As everyone believes that they are all special creations and are equal in the sight of God, they reach out beyond the racial boundaries and care for one another. Who is reaching out to the AIDS victims? If is the followers of Christ. They reach out to blacks, whites, and everyone.They are bound by personal convictions. They are responsible good citizens. LIfe is a gift of God which has to be cherished, nourished and protected by all means. This includes the unborn as well as the elderly. Belief in Creation is in the best interest of our society.

 

[FreezBee]

Consequences of believing in Evolution is there is no God.

Do you mean, what you write here? That is if you believe in (accept the theory of) evolution, then there is no God! Interesting hypothetical, please elaborate

We evolved through naturalism. There is no right and wrong. There is no absolute. Everything is relative. There is no Truth. Everything depends on the situation. Truth is not the same for everyone. It varies from person to person. Then we become disrespectful of laws.The unborn has no life. Therefore, it is perfectly alright to Murder an innocent Unborn. Belief in Evolution also protects the Criminal and punishes the innocent as there is no right and wrong. The society becomes lawless. Ultimate result is Chaos.

How exactly does this come about. Truth is not the same for everyone, independent of creation/evolution. Jews disagree with Christians, who disagree with Hindud, who disagree with Moslems, and so on.

You appear to confuse matters.

On the other hand, belief in creation has the following benefits. There is respect for law and order.

Why? I simply fail to see the mechanical connection

Morality is the basis for our personal lives, families and then the Society.

How did you come from "law and order" to "morality". As for the rest of that line, it presupposes yhat all have a family - I don't! So belief in creation is only possible for people who live in families. Did Adam and Eve live in a family? Did they live in a society? Did they believe in creation? The people before the flood, did they believe in evolution? Hardly! Yet God found them so wicked that he decided kill the entire population of the earth except for 8 people!

As everyone believes that they are all special creations and are equal in the sight of God, they reach out beyond the racial boundaries and care for one another.

Welcome to the club, disciple777

But believe me, this has nothing to do with believing in a literal creation week 6,000 years ago. I believe that every week is the creation week of God!

Belief in Creation is in the best interest of our society.

No, not if you define "Creation" as it is implied by "Creationists"!


- FreezBee

 

[invisible trousers]

There are a lot of websites and books on the inherent racism in Darwinist theories applied to the origins of the human race and various racial groups within it. What do you want me to do? List them all when you can google for "evolutionary racism" yourself?

Uh no, I want you to actually provide evidence that evolution is racist. You keep refusing to do so. Strange.