Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[tas8831]

Not a big surprise - one need only look at the darlings of the GQP.


Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism

"Similarly, across the globe -- in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel -- low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person's group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution.

The findings supported the hypothesis of lead author Stylianos Syropoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in the War and Peace Labof senior author Bernhard Leidner, associate professor of social psychology. They collaborated with co-first author Uri Lifshin at Reichman University in Israel and co-authors Jeff Greenberg and Dylan Horner at the University of Arizona in Tucson. The researchers theorized that belief in evolution would tend to increase people's identification with all humanity, due to the common ancestry, and would lead to less prejudicial attitudes."​

Matches my experiences over the past 3 decades.

 

[Hank77]

The researchers theorized that belief in evolution would tend to increase people's identification with all humanity, due to the common ancestry, and would lead to less prejudicial attitudes."

So does the belief in God creating Adam and Eve as the first humans and all other humans share that common ancestry.
Christians can believe in common ancestry with other humans without believing in evolution.

 

[RDKirk]

Christianity has a better and more explicitly stated argument against racism than evolution.

Evolution can be true and racism might still have a valid foundation.

If Christ is true, then racism certainly has no valid foundation.

From my viewpoint, faith is buffeted hardest by people who claim to be Christians, yet who are racist.

 

[tas8831]

So does the belief in God creating Adam and Eve as the first humans and all other humans share that common ancestry.
Christians can believe in common ancestry with other humans without believing in evolution.

Sure - and they can also believe that you can bake cookies but not cakes.

 

[tas8831]

Christianity has a better and more explicitly stated argument against racism than evolution.

Then I guess these bible-lovers were just.... stupid?

"... We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."​

Evolution can be true and racism might still have a valid foundation.

If Christ is true, then racism certainly has no valid foundation.

From my viewpoint, faith is buffeted hardest by people who claim to be Christians, yet who are racist.

Seems to be an issue with a lot of such folk these days.

 

[DragonFox91]

You could've just said 'white uneducated hicks are racist' & your meaning wouldn't have been lost.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Christianity has a better and more explicitly stated argument against racism than evolution.

Evolution can be true and racism might still have a valid foundation.

If Christ is true, then racism certainly has no valid foundation.

From my viewpoint, faith is buffeted hardest by people who claim to be Christians, yet who are racist.

Good point actually. I think that the problem may lie in education. Acceptance of evolution tends to go along with a higher level of education. If one has enough education to understand evolution, and accept it as a result, then it is hard to use it in racism since the theory also explains how little difference there is between humans. Christianity ideally should be against racism too. If one understands the belief properly one should not be racist. The problem is that Christianity has a very wide acceptance. Many people accept it without fully understanding it. As a result the uneducated drag down Christianity when it comes to topics such as racism.

 

[Hank77]

Sure - and they can also believe that you can bake cookies but not cakes.

Can bake cakes just not cakes that celebrate events or ideologies that they believe are celebrating sins, such as racism or Nazis or sexual sins or thief or murder, etc.

An atheist baker could refuse to bake a wedding cake depicting a church with a Christian cross on it because he really HATES the idea of Christianity. He believes it's evil and oppressive and against his own faith.

Personally, I believe that contract artists should be free to create what they choose to create and not be forced into creating against their will.

 

[trophy33]

The researchers theorized that belief in evolution would tend to increase people's identification with all humanity, due to the common ancestry, and would lead to less prejudicial attitudes."

I would theorize that its more simple - people who are against evolution are frequently less educated. Higher education makes people to be more tolerant, generally - to other opinions, to other people etc.

People with higher education are also less influenced by various misinformation and can better recognize bad and biased sources.

 

[RDKirk]

Then I guess these bible-lovers were just.... stupid?

Those are the people the Apostle Paul was talking about when he said to remove from the Church those who claimed to be a Christian but refuse to behave like Christ.

 

[RDKirk]

Good point actually. I think that the problem may lie in education. Acceptance of evolution tends to go along with a higher level of education. If one has enough education to understand evolution, and accept it as a result, then it is hard to use it in racism since the theory also explains how little difference there is between humans. Christianity ideally should be against racism too. If one understands the belief properly one should not be racist. The problem is that Christianity has a very wide acceptance. Many people accept it without fully understanding it. As a result the uneducated drag down Christianity when it comes to topics such as racism.

No, it's not a lack of "education." In Christianity, it does not require "education." Plenty of people are "educated" in the bible and yet have been and are racist.

It requires the Holy Spirit.

 

[RDKirk]

I would theorize that its more simple - people who are against evolution are frequently less educated. Higher education makes people to be more tolerant, generally - to other opinions, to other people etc.

People with higher education are also less influenced by various misinformation and can better recognize bad and biased sources.

How do you explain all the college educated people who are also influenced by misinformation? Marjorie Taylor Greene?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, it's not a lack of "education." In Christianity, it does not require "education." Plenty of people are "educated" in the bible and yet have been and are racist.

It requires the Holy Spirit.

I would disagree with that. You are going find a lack of "Holy Spirit" among the uneducated. I would hope that your Holy Spirit is not so discriminatory.

 

[RDKirk]

I would disagree with that. You are going find a lack of "Holy Spirit" among the uneducated. I would hope that your Holy Spirit is not so discriminatory.

The Holy Spirit doesn't require education. Education is irrelevant.

In non-spiritual terms, that's like saying education is a requirement for being a "good person" and that the uneducated are more likely to be evil than the educated.

Is that your claim?

 

[trophy33]

How do you explain all the college educated people who are also influenced by misinformation? Marjorie Taylor Greene?

Its not 100% certainity that if you are more educated, then you will be wiser or richer or anything similar. It just a higher probability.

But I do not know the name, so I can respond only in this general way.

 

[pescador]

I would disagree with that. You are going find a lack of "Holy Spirit" among the uneducated. I would hope that your Holy Spirit is not so discriminatory.

You wrote "You are going find a lack of "Holy Spirit" among the uneducated". What is your basis for this bizarre statement?

 

[RDKirk]

Its not 100% certainity that if you are more educated, then you will be wiser or richer or anything similar. It just a higher probability.

But I do not know the name, so I can respond only in this general way.

If by "more educated," you mean a bachelor's degree, I would not assert that being "more educated" suggests, implies, or imparts any moral superiority to any greater degree than one can achieve.

It might mean one knows which politically correct answers a survey poll question requires, but I would not take that to judge whether the person is a morally superior person.

Are you going to say that a nation with a higher percentage of college graduates is also more likely to have a higher percentage of morally superior persons?

 

[trophy33]

If by "more educated," you mean a bachelor's degree, I would not assert that being "more educated" suggests, implies, or imparts any moral superiority to any greater degree than one can achieve.

It might mean one knows which politically correct answers a survey poll question requires, but I would not take that to judge whether the person is a morally superior person.

Are you going to say that a nation with a higher percentage of college graduates is also more likely to have a higher percentage of morally superior persons?

Not sure why you switched to "moral superiority". Its not related to anything I said.

 

[RDKirk]

Not sure why you switched to "moral superiority".

I used the terms "evil" and "good" earlier. Would you prefer that I switch back to that?

Or is "tolerance" the only criterion you're concerned with?

 

[trophy33]

I used the terms "evil" and "good" earlier. Would you prefer that I switch back to that?

I did not respond to your posts, you did to mine. And in this context its not related to what I said.

I do not know what is the correlation between education and morality.