Is Evolution Racist?

[Late_Cretaceous]

There are two reasons to claim that evolution is racist.
1- either you are scientifically ignorant, and don't know what you are talking about, or
2- you do know enough about science to realize that YECism has no scientific support so you would rather demonize evolutionists

In either case it is basically that you just can't argue against the facts (in the first case, you don't realize it and in the second you do).

Either stance particularly flies in the face of biblical teachings.

 

[PaladinValer]

Evolution isn't racist

Reconstructionism is, however

 

[shernren]

PaladinValer - what do you mean by reconstructionism?

Disciple777 - I respect your right to call me an atheist and I will not bother conjuring up yet another flamefest by trying to show you that I am not. C.S. Lewis once said when he was young, "I have a prejudice against the French." and when asked why, he replied, "If I knew why, it wouldn't be a prejudice!" ... prejudice is not a result of reason and cannot be fought with reason. Therefore I respect what appears to be statements born from extreme prejudice against evolution and its position.

But I would simply point out that the Jews of Jesus' day practiced racism against Samaritans and Gentiles, and that Protestant Christianity in some forms practiced racism against Jews. Both these racist beliefs stemmed from improper interpretations of God's Holy Scripture by people who either had never heard of evolution or would not have believed it without much debate and contention. Therefore evolution cannot be the common factor in human racism and it is doubtful to say that it is inherently racist. It is far more logical to say that people are racist and find reasons to be racist in whatever they believe, whether it is evolution, God's Scripture, or any other belief in the world.

 

[WAB]

It might be a good idea to research the behaviour of evolutionists in Australia a long time ago. They captured an Aboriginal native, kept him in a cage, shipped him to the U.K. and put him on display in a zoo. Nice folks....

 

[PaladinValer]

You should look at the behavior of Christians a long time ago. They butchered tens of thousands of Jews and Muslims. Nice folks...

I hope you see your error in logic.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It might be a good idea to look into the behaviour of a VEGETARIAN who lived in Germany in the 1930's. He instigated Word War II and killed millions.

A vegetarian did a bad thing, therefore vegetarians are bad people and therefore vegetarianism is wrong.

Heck, for fun you could even have a few bible verses to back up your anti-vegarianim

Acts 10:9-13 Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

{notice too that the Earth is square and flat. Damn those sperical earthists as well}

Romans 14:2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils ... commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Of course, you can see how dumb that is.
No rational minded person is really going to think that vegetarianism is bad, or that vegetarians are evil.

Not much smarter then saying.
An evolutionist did a bad thing, therefore all evolutionists are bad people and therefore evolutionary thoery is wrong.

A smarter, or at least more honest apporach would be to say "Hey look, I don't know much about biology or evolutionary theory and my ignorance has led to fear of it. SO now I am going to try and spread the good feeling around by villifying those evolutionists".

 

[john crawford]

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?

Not only that, but the modern Out of Africa theory states that modern Asian and Caucasian races originated from a species and race of African people. If that's not a racial and racist theory of Asian and Caucasian origins, I don't know of a more racial and racist theory of Asian and Caucasian origins. Name it if you do.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

It is not actually evolutionary theory that claims that all Homo sapeins originated in Africa. Evolution deals with the generation of new species. In this case, no change in species is spoken of.

What science has found is that the original Homo sapiens human population lived in eastern Africa and spread around the globe. In the process of this spread other Hominid species (like the Neanderthal and Homo erectus) were displaced and eventually disapeared. THe most likely causes for the disapearance of other hominind species is due to competition for resources from Homo sapiens.

The science of genetics supports the idea that Homo sapiens had it's origins in Africa, and that populations living on all the other continents have lived there for a much shorter period of time. A much greater degree of genetic variation is seen amongst African populations then amongst all non Africans. This leads to the conclusion that Africa has been populated for much longer. Paleontolgical and archaeological evidence supports this theory.

The science of genetics also demonstrates that the differences amongst Homo sapiens populations that we attribute to race are based on very small and almost insignificant differences in genetic structure. In other words, it would be hard to tell a person's race based on genes. There is often more genetic variation within races then there is between them. This has led many to conclude that the concept of race is superficial at best, and in reality does not exist.

How on earth is the idea that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and later - much later - spread around the globe in a relatively short period of time racist?

How exactly is that racist?

How does saying that promote hate or misconceptions about a specific race?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I think that the fact that Mr. Crawford is so obsessed with racial issues is that he has a problem with racial differences.


I recall one particular group of YECs that told me that God had created the races separately for a reason, and that they must remain separeate. I cannot imagine anything more racist then that statement.

Tell me John, does it bother you to see inter-racial couples walking down the street?

 

[john crawford]

It is not actually evolutionary theory that claims that all Homo sapeins originated in Africa.

Who claims that H. sapiens originated in Africa then? Creationists?

Evolution deals with the generation of new species. In this case, no change in species is spoken of.

Having admitted that, evolutionists must now concede that Asians and Caucasians didn't evolve in or out of Africa; they just descended from an African race or species of human beings which did evolve from inferior species.

How on earth is the idea that Homo sapiens originated in Africa and later - much later - spread around the globe in a relatively short period of time be racist? How exactly is that racist?

The "idea" that modern Asians and Caucasians are descended from an African race or species is a racist idea.

How does saying that promote hate or misconceptions about a specific race?

It promotes misconceptions about the origins of Asian and Caucasian racial groups from African races or species, and reduces Asian and Caucasian racial groups to an inferior evolutionary status. Whether this promotes racial hatred or contempt remains to be seen.

 

[shernren]

John, I really don't understand why you see this theory as being racist. Racial, yes. It is a theory about races and how they developed. But racists are people who choose to be racist and then find theories to support their racism. There have been such people throughout the centuries and if even God's word can be subverted to support racism is it any wonder that evolution can?

A racial theory may be one that says "Race A did this to Race B", for example "The whites enslaved the blacks". That is an objective statement of fact inferred from historical evidence. A racist theory on the other hand says essentially "Race A is better than Race B because ...", for example, "The whites are better than the blacks because ..." these are essentially personal subjective value judgments about presently-existent people which are not motivated by objective theories.

If you ask me, I think that by your same criteria (which are your responsibility and which I do not accept) the Bible is even more racist than evolution. God consistently makes subjective preselection of people's destinies without prior historical evidence (indeed, before the races even existed as anything more than historical individual ancestors) at least twice - in choosing Isaac over Ishmael and Jacob over Esau. Be careful ... are you sure your own beliefs can withstand the harsh standards by which you judge others' beliefs?

 

[john crawford]

John, I really don't understand why you see this theory as being racist. Racial, yes. It is a theory about races and how they developed.

At least you are in the same racial ballpark as evolutionist theory is playing in.

A racist theory on the other hand says essentially "Race A is better than Race B because ...", for example, "The whites are better than the blacks because ..." these are essentially personal subjective value judgments about presently-existent people which are not motivated by objective theories.

By the same token, evolutionist theory is racist because it says that the modern racial groups within the Homo sapiens 'species' are culturally and intellectually superior to all the racial groups which existed within the species of Homo erectus. Denying that racial groups existed within Homo erectus to the same extent that they exist within H. sapiens is as racist as denying that different racial groups exist within the H. sapiens species.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Actually, evolutionary theory does not deal with inferiority or superiority. Those are subjective opinions.

Is a cockroach superior or inferior to a human? Both humans and cockroaches are the products of equal amounts of evolutionary time. Both species are the offspring of a long line of evolutionary winners.

YOu also seem to misunderstand the difference between species and race. All modern humans are of one species. Racial differences amongst humans are superficial at best.

WOuld it be racist to say that the Ukranian and Russian Languages both originated from an earlier slavic language? Nobody is saying that russian is superior to ukranian, or that the original slavic tongue is superior to either modern decendant? It is just a reiteration of history. Why did that original slavic language split into two separarate languages, and why did it itself die out/ Well, languages evolve and diversify just like species do. That statement makes no inference or claim about superiority or inferiority.

 

[shernren]

Okay, John, I'm really losing you here. So now what you're trying to say is that evolution is racist because it says that H. erectus is inferior to H. sapiens? Well, even if evolution did make that sort of value judgment, I still don't see how that would be racist because the H. erectus do not constitute an extant human racial group today.

 

[john crawford]

Actually, evolutionary theory does not deal with inferiority or superiority. Those are subjective opinions.

Of course, those terms are avoided and replaced by euphemisms such as more evolved, more advanced or human, more intelligent, larger brains, etc.

Is a cockroach superior or inferior to a human?

Inferior. Equating humans to cockroaches is a subjective opinion.

Both humans and cockroaches are the products of equal amounts of evolutionary time.

Only in lopsided Darwinist accounts of evolution.

Both species are the offspring of a long line of evolutionary winners.

Winners are superior to losers.

YOu also seem to misunderstand the difference between species and race.

No, I don't. You do, since human races are observable while human 'species' are not.

All modern humans are of one species.

All humans are of one species, dead or alive.

Racial differences amongst humans are superficial at best.

At least they are observable while the observation of so-called other human 'species' by Darwinists are not.

Well, languages evolve and diversify just like species do.

Human races evolve and none of them are 'species.'

That statement makes no inference or claim about superiority or inferiority.

Theoretical claims that Eurasian races evolved out of an African race are inherently racist though, when there is no evidence of it.

 

[john crawford]

So now what you're trying to say is that evolution is racist because it says that H. erectus is inferior to H. sapiens?

The theory implies that H. erectus fossil specimens were much less evolved, less complex, less advanced and much less sophisticated and intelligent than modern 'sapient' sapiens are.

Well, even if evolution did make that sort of value judgment, I still don't see how that would be racist because the H. erectus do not constitute an extant human racial group today.

Since the theoretical descendents of H. erectus do constitute racial groups today, claiming that today's Oriental and Caucasian races are equally descended from H. erectus in Africa alone, rather than in their own regions, is a racially bigoted perspective which may be considered racist towards Oriental and Caucasian racial groups today.

 

[WAB]

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

Hey! Finally found something we agree upon...

 

[WAB]

You should look at the behavior of Christians a long time ago. They butchered tens of thousands of Jews and Muslims. Nice folks...

I hope you see your error in logic.

What "Christians" are you referring to? Those who took part in the Inquisition?

Guess where they originated.

 

[john crawford]

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?

Not only that, but theories, stages and models of human evolution are inherently racist at every step of so-called human 'speciation' because they deal with the fossil origins of all human racial groups and their ancestors. I know it seems difficult for most posters on these forums to comprehend, but racial groups didn't originate and begin to vary within Homo sapiens alone, and every so-called Darwinist 'species' of human beings in the fossil record represents a racial group in the region where the fossils are found. Just look at Kennewick Man.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/kennewick.html

 

[billwald]

One must differentiate between evolution and Social Darwinism.

Sentient beings such as humans don't evolve because evolution is random. Humans mate for reasons other than reproduction.