Is evolution a "racist" theory?

[Blueforest]

Answers in Genesis certainly thinks so:

Are There Really Different Races? - Answers in Genesis

Darwinian evolution was (and still is1) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others.

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Answers in Genesis is, for lack of a better word, stupid.

 

[Blueforest]

Answers in Genesis is, for lack of a better word, stupid.

It's a good thing I'm not an admin on that site or anything... :o

 

[Walter Kovacs]

Ken Ham got kicked out of this years Big Homeschool Convention because he was calling everyone who didn't buy into his crap a non-Christian (using much more forceful language). To them, non-literal 6 day creation = demonic. Which is funny, because Genesis is definitely NOT meant to be any kind of scientific treatise on how the universe was formed. It's theological poetry/myth/demythification. If only more people read things in context, instead of reading the answers they want into the text...

 

[rturner76]

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

In the late 19th and early 20th century evolution was wrongly used to try and "prove" some races were less evolved (and therefore inferior) to other races. Today very few people hold this view, as it is quite obvious all humans are members of the same species.

[EDIT] I probably shouldn't but I find this very funny. Nice try Ken

 

[Incariol]

Answers in Genesis is, for lack of a better word, stupid.

Pretty much this.

 

[good brother]

If only more people read things in context, instead of reading the answers they want into the text...

If you read the Genesis account you would see that, in it's context, it is meant to be understood as literal time. It is the others who want to mystify it and make people believe it is not to be taken literally. If it is literal history then it's either God is right or man's "wisdom" is right. If God is right, then man must be wrong. But, if God's word can be turned into some allegorical myth, then there is no reason to discount man's supposed knowledge. the only reason then that God's word is mystified is so that evolution can be blindly accepted and no one has to "out" themselves as one of those fundy's. For those of us who just read it at it's face value it is easy to see that the message is conveyed as literal.


In Christ, GB

 

[Knee V]

If people use evolution to promote racist ideologies, then they either don't understand it, or are deliberately misusing it for their agenda.

"Evolutionists" will readily tell you that races, for all practical purposes, are non-existent. A more accurate way to describe the divisions in humanity is to talk about "haplogroups", which do not necessarily correspond with the physical attributes commonly associated with "race".

For example, Europeans and Native Americans are part of one haplogroup that split from another haplogroup that is represented by the people that entered India from the north (as opposed to the haplogroup that entered India from the coast, parts of which population continued to move east and colonize places like the Philippines and Australia). There is a group in the Sahara that, although possessing black skin and other "african" features, are part of a haplogroup that is mostly represented in the Middle East. So even though they are black and look like most of the rest of the sub-Saharan Africans, they are actually more closely related to those in the Middle East.

"Racism" is not supported by evolution. As mankind spread, certain outward features changed as we went into different environments. Not all of those traits were even necessarily due to the environment. Sometimes people just find certain things attractive. But the number of genes that are required to make those superficial changes are so small that there is essentially no genetic difference between different "races". The difference is just as much as between members of the same "race".

So no, evolution is not racist. People are racist and use a twisted version of evolution to promote their racism.

And for the record, I do not claim to subscribe to common descent, and I take a rather agnostic stance when it comes to the mechanics of life and its development since creation. I just like to see points of view accurately represented.


For a cursory overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup

 

[chris4243]

Does having more surviving offspring make you a better person? Nevertheless, it will pass on your genes.

 

[good brother]

If people use evolution to promote racist ideologies, then they either don't understand it, or are deliberately misusing it for their agenda.

"Evolutionists" will readily tell you that races, for all practical purposes, are non-existent. A more accurate way to describe the divisions in humanity is to talk about "haplogroups", which do not necessarily correspond with the physical attributes commonly associated with "race".

For example, Europeans and Native Americans are part of one haplogroup that split from another haplogroup that is represented by the people that entered India from the north (as opposed to the haplogroup that entered India from the coast, parts of which population continued to move east and colonize places like the Philippines and Australia). There is a group in the Sahara that, although possessing black skin and other "african" features, are part of a haplogroup that is mostly represented in the Middle East. So even though they are black and look like most of the rest of the sub-Saharan Africans, they are actually more closely related to those in the Middle East.

"Racism" is not supported by evolution. As mankind spread, certain outward features changed as we went into different environments. Not all of those traits were even necessarily due to the environment. Sometimes people just find certain things attractive. But the number of genes that are required to make those superficial changes are so small that there is essentially no genetic difference between different "races". The difference is just as much as between members of the same "race".

So no, evolution is not racist. People are racist and use a twisted version of evolution to promote their racism.

And for the record, I do not claim to subscribe to common descent, and I take a rather agnostic stance when it comes to the mechanics of life and its development since creation. I just like to see points of view accurately represented.


For a cursory overview: Haplogroup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wouldn't haplogroups and haplotypes be evidence suggesting a literal interpretation of the story of the Tower of Babel?

In Christ, GB

 

[Knee V]

Wouldn't haplogroups and haplotypes be evidence suggesting a literal interpretation of the story of the Tower of Babel?

In Christ, GB

Haplogroups/haplotypes paint a picture of the migratory history of mankind. Given what that evidence looks like, it paints an "out of Africa" picture of that story. The "newer" a population group is, the fewer unique mutations it would have, since there would be less time for mutations to accumulate. The older a population group is, the more unique mutations that it would have, since there would be more time for that group to accumulate mutations. The populations with the most mutations, and presumably therefore the oldest groups, are in Africa.

Of course, it's possible that that data could be misleading. I'll never rule out faulty observation/conclusions. Whatever the haplogroup evidence may be, I firmly believe that it can be reconciled to Genesis.

 

[Assyrian]

[EDIT] I probably shouldn't but I find this very funny. Nice try Ken

What??? That really is an Answers in Genesis illustration. Are There Really Different Races? - Answers in Genesis

I think Ken Ham

has a subversive working in AiG

 

[good brother]

In the late 19th and early 20th century evolution was wrongly used to try and "prove" some races were less evolved (and therefore inferior) to other races. Today very few people hold this view, as it is quite obvious all humans are members of the same species.

[EDIT] I probably shouldn't but I find this very funny. Nice try Ken

Forensic scientists use terms like negroid, mongoloid, and Caucasoid to define people groups. How do you figure Ken lied in any way?


In Christ, GB

 

[Papias]

Both Catholics and Protestants misused the story of Ham in Genesis to justify racism and slavery for centuries, even by Popes. This justification of racism based on Genesis was especially vociferous in the 1800's, because racism was coming under attack. Perhaps Jefferson Davis, the only President of the Conferacy, encapsulated this view best:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation..."

And that was typical of many of those defending the enslavement of African American. Another example:

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond

Hamitic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_and_O_map_Guntherus_Ziner_1472.jpg
At the same time, it is true that evolution was misused for decades by some people in the late 1800s to defend racism as well. That's pretty ironic being that one of the main points of evolution is that as humans, we are all one family bound by common descent. There is no "curse of Ham" in evolution, as there is among those who supported racism.

So either view,and many more in addition, can be, and has been, distorted to support racism. Doing so is both pointless and divisive.

Papias