YECs: What is the problem with Evolution?

[Asimis]

Greetings,

I was wondering why YECs oppose the Theory of Evolution so much. Is it the evidence or does it has to do more with the apparent biblical conflicts it poses?

I am not fully convinced about Macroevolution myself yet, but I am still looking into that matter. So maybe you guys have any evidence that either refutes Evolution or simply prevents you from accepting it? Or is it the lack of evidence that prevents you from accepting it?

I ask because most of the anti-evolution sites or arguments I see are mostly based on a couple of bible verses, Irreducible Complexity(ID) or a misrepresentation of Evolution in general(Dr. Dino and Answers in Genesis come to mind)l. In my opinion they are rather dissapointing since they do not provide an honest look at it.

If the problem is because of the apparent conflict with Christian doctrine, then I would be glad to hear what are the problems that you think Evolution poses to it.

Also why do you think that the earth is only 10,000/6,000 years old?

Have a good day,
Asimis

 

[herev]

Greetings,

I was wondering why YECs oppose the Theory of Evolution so much. Is it the evidence or does it has to do more with the apparent biblical conflicts it poses?

I am not fully convinced about Macroevolution myself yet, but I am still looking into that matter. So maybe you guys have any evidence that either refutes Evolution or simply prevents you from accepting it? Or is it the lack of evidence that prevents you from accepting it?

I ask because most of the anti-evolution sites or arguments I see are mostly based on a couple of bible verses, Irreducible Complexity(ID) or a misrrepresentation of Evolution in genera(Dr. Dino and Answers in Genesis come to mind)l. In my opinion they are rather dissapointing since they do not provide an honest look at it.

If the problem is because of the apparent conflict with Christian doctrine, then I would be glad to hear what are the problems that you think Evolution poses to it.

Also why do you think that the earth is only 10,000/6,000 years old?

Have a good day,
Asimis

Good question, I look forward to the answers

 

[TwinCrier]

I was raised and educated in evolution, however after i received salvation and studied the bible, I became convinced in my heart as well as my mind, that a literal 6 day creation was true. After all, I read in a book about evolution, then read in a book about creation. My main problem with it is that it calls the bible a lie, or at the very least, a parable. I can look at a picture of a fossil and be told it is a billion years old, but I can't prove that to my satisfaction. I can't 'prove' the bible either, but the scriptures do not require that I provide proof, only that I believe. So I guess the answer to the first question is the lack of evidence. Those bones and fossils may not be what they are said to be. It seems the only way we will ever know 100% for sure is to ask God someday, and if evolution is true, I have nothing to blame but my devotion and faith for being wrong.
As for the 6000 years, I remember reading about the math done tracing back dates to the time of Adam. Many will argue a few hundred years one way or another, but science too, gives estimates, often into the millions, so I think the numbers are fair. There just isn't enough hardcore proof to shatter my faith in God's word. I believe it's a matter of heart as well as intellect.

 

[Asimis]

I was raised and educated in evolution, however after i received salvation and studied the bible, I became convinced in my heart as well as my mind, that a literal 6 day creation was true. After all, I read in a book about evolution, then read in a book about creation. My main problem with it is that it calls the bible a lie, or at the very least, a parable.

Which books did you read? I know of several scientist that are strong atheists and like to use Evolution to attack religious beliefs (Richard Dawkings comes to mind) but these are..as far as I know in the small minority. In the same manner there are Creationist books who dismiss Evolution as a hoax without giving it much thought. There are good and balanced books on the subject of Evolution and more specially on how it relates to God..have you read the book "Finding Darwin's God"? It has some good reviews on Amazon.

As for Evolution "calling" the Bible a lie or a parable, I think this is a product of the same people I mentioned above. Evolution by itself is just a biological process, it neither deals with the origin of life (that is what Abiogenesis handles) nor does it promotes a naturalistic philosophical stance.

I can look at a picture of a fossil and be told it is a billion years old, but I can't prove that to my satisfaction. I can't 'prove' the bible either, but the scriptures do not require that I provide proof, only that I believe. So I guess the answer to the first question is the lack of evidence. Those bones and fossils may not be what they are said to be. It seems the only way we will ever know 100% for sure is to ask God someday, and if evolution is true, I have nothing to blame but my devotion and faith for being wrong.

Well, maybe we need to have "faith" in those fossils even if they are not satisfying to us? We must remember that it is not our thinking but God's that matter and since God created the world and gave us his testimony in The Bible then we should not be afraid of looking at the world for answers since whatever apparent "conflict" we may find between His Creation and His Word should be nothing but the result of our own thinking.

As for the 6000 years, I remember reading about the math done tracing back dates to the time of Adam. Many will argue a few hundred years one way or another, but science too, gives estimates, often into the millions, so I think the numbers are fair. There just isn't enough hardcore proof to shatter my faith in God's word. I believe it's a matter of heart as well as intellect.

I believe it is a matter of what God did and didn't do and not something that is up for us to decide. I also think, that the purpose of The Bible is not that of a science book but to get people to heaven. God created us with all the potential we have and it is his desire that we use it so in reality there is no need that everything we find in the world must be written in The Bible. The Bible is our rock on which we stand but what follows is what we do when we are standing on that rock..which is our own contribution.

Thanks for your reply, have a good day,
Asimis

 

[Enkidu]

Our forebearers burned folks at the stake because they dared to say Earth was not the center of the universe. Or, that Earth was not flat or square because the Bible said the elect would be collected from the four corners of Earth.
Neither of the issues made a difference in God or our relationship to him. Seems a little "silly" that we could have believe God created a geocentric universe. It's very sad that lives were lost in the attempt to shut down human understanding.

How will this generation look in 500 years? God is my Lord.... If life is teaming on 1000's of planets, He is my God. If his hand guided our development for hundreds of thousands of years, He is my God. If He held the cyanobacteria in His hands three million years ago, He is my God.

Genesis is about creation. The creation of relationships. Relationships between God and man, man and Earth. God reaches out to man no matter the state, origin, or pace of the cosmos.

 

[PotLuck]

What is the problem with Evolution?
One word.
"Transitional"
While an evolutionist I hated that word and anyone using it.
Where is evidence of transition of one kind to another?

 

[Tachocline]

What is the problem with Evolution?
One word.
"Transitional"
While an evolutionist I hated that word and anyone using it.
Where is evidence of transition of one kind to another?

Well since there are many transitional fossils why do you have a problem?

You must have been a very poor evolutionist not to know this.

 

[gluadys]

I can look at a picture of a fossil and be told it is a billion years old, but I can't prove that to my satisfaction. I can't 'prove' the bible either, but the scriptures do not require that I provide proof, only that I believe.

I really don't understand this. Of course, no one can tell the age of a fossil by looking at a picture of it. But surely behind that picture are scientists who have dated the fossil with the most reliable techniques known to us.

Except for the apostles, none of the early Christians had actually seen the risen Christ. Nor have we. The apostles asked others to believe their testimony. And we do.

Have not scientists who have studied the evidence first hand the same right to ask us who are not scientists to believe their testimony? Especially since the evidence they offer is still available for anyone to look at, touch and measure, so that if anyone is willing to study, they can verify what scientists are saying about a fossil.

I cannot see any reason to refuse the eyewitness testimony of a scientist any more that I would refuse the eyewitness testimony of one of the apostles.

One testifies of natural things; the other of spiritual things. I cannot see why it would be necessary to reject one testimony in order to accept the other.

 

[Vance]

What is the problem with Evolution?
One word.
"Transitional"
While an evolutionist I hated that word and anyone using it.
Where is evidence of transition of one kind to another?

Potluck, you can look here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

Plenty of transitionals.

The bottom line: if evolution is correct and species did evolve from one kind into another kind, the fossil record would look just as it does.

Another point about transitionals is that there is absolutely no YEC model which would explain how we have all these fossils that line up so nicely in sequential developmental order based on the dating and stratigraphy, exactly as evolution would expect.

 

[Ceris]

Except for the apostles, none of the early Christians had actually seen the risen Christ. Nor have we. The apostles asked others to believe their testimony. And we do.

Just for your information, a good number of early Christians had actually seen the risen Christ.

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, emphasis mine)

God Bless,
Ceris

 

[Vance]

I think the point was that people believed without seeing, based on the word of those who did see.

 

[GodSaves]

I believe men are all fallible. I believe, when one is truly digging into the Scriptures of God's Word to know Him, we are guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is infallible, as He is the Spirit of God.

Why don't I change my mind and believe in evolution?

I feel I have been guided by the Holy Spirit. I am open for the Bible to tell me differently about evolution or creationism. I feel the Bible speaks in terms of creationism, not evolutionism.

I do not understand, please forgive me, why one feels they should change their interpretation of God's Word to be in accordance with what scientific men say. These men are like me, fallible. These men are unlike me, agnostic and in part atheists.

Are we, who are Christians, who truly seek God, being guided by the Holy Spirit? Are men of science trying to prove what they believe of the earth/universe to be true, guided by the Holy Spirit?

So if we, who are Christians, are guided by the Holy Spirit, why should one change their interpretation of the Bible to fit with these agnostics and atheists interpretation of evidence? Why not instead change the interpretation of the evidence?

Might it being saying that the interpretation of evidence, provided by these scientists, is more correct then our interpretation of the Scriptures that is guided by the Holy Spirit? Honestly someone is not being led by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible. But in our pride we will argue, both you and I, that we are right. Since I have been in many of these discussions, I have been studying the Bible more intensly then I was. I am searching to see if I am wrong in my belief. I am open to be wrong. I would gladly be corrected by God. I have yet to find something to make me think other then I do.

I will not put my faith in understanding of the scriptures in men who do not even believe in God. I put my faith in the Holy Spirit to guide me and teach me, by reading the Bible, not scientific journals. This is an issue of faith, no one was there, science cannot tell you for certain how it happened, they were not there. It is only their interpretation of the evidence, and if those who believe my interpretation can be wrong, so could the scientists interpretation of the evidence be wrong. I will continue to put my faith in the Holy Spirit to guide me. The Bible speaks of what happened and that is good enough for me. I do not need to add, alter, rephrase, or whatever else to make the Bible go with the flow and be consistent with today's scientific interpretation.

These days are talked about quite often in the Bible, here is just a few that make an impression on me:

1 Timothy 1
3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.

2 Timothy 4
2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.


By studying more intensly, I have realized I am not coming close to what has been commanded of me by God's will. God's will calls us to be like His disciples.
Jack Perry has said:
"To obey God's will for my life, what a shattering thought. If I took Jesus at His Word, would I not be helping the poor, or giving all I had to the needy, or learning to care for the sick, or proclaiming the acceptable day of the Lord on the public streets, or binding the wounds of the war-torn, would I not be about my Father's business, rather than going on about my daily routine? If I took Jesus seriously, and truly asked God to let me do His will in my life, would I be where I am right now?"

That really hits me hard. I have done a few of these things he speaks of. But have I truly gone about my Father's business, rather than going on about my daily routine, all the time?

humbled and God fearing...

 

[GodSaves]

I really don't understand this. Of course, no one can tell the age of a fossil by looking at a picture of it. But surely behind that picture are scientists who have dated the fossil with the most reliable techniques known to us.

Except for the apostles, none of the early Christians had actually seen the risen Christ. Nor have we. The apostles asked others to believe their testimony. And we do.

Have not scientists who have studied the evidence first hand the same right to ask us who are not scientists to believe their testimony? Especially since the evidence they offer is still available for anyone to look at, touch and measure, so that if anyone is willing to study, they can verify what scientists are saying about a fossil.

I cannot see any reason to refuse the eyewitness testimony of a scientist any more that I would refuse the eyewitness testimony of one of the apostles.

One testifies of natural things; the other of spiritual things. I cannot see why it would be necessary to reject one testimony in order to accept the other.

I know you did not mean this, but I am a bit bothered by the equating of agnostic scientists with the Apostles of Christ.

 

[Vance]

But where your point falls down is when Bible-believing, Spirit-filled and Spirit-led Christians feel equally led by the Spirit to interpret Genesis non-literally and feel led TO believe that God created by evolutionary processes.

Your point further ignores all the Bible-believing, Spirit-led Christians who are those very scientists providing the evidence for an old earth and for evolution.

Lastly, your point seems to forget the most important factor, we who are reading and interpreting the Scripture are equally human and equally fallible. Just as man can be fallible in his interpretation of God's Creation, he can be equally fallible in his interpretation of God's Word. This is proven by the simple fact that we have literally thousands of Christian denominations, each of whom interpret Scripture differently. And, very often, the matters being variously interpreted are of much more consequence to Christian theology than exactly when and how God created.

There are times when we, as Christians, have to recognize that if there is a conflict between the evidence of God's Creation, as presented by the scientific community (even if the scientists presenting it are not Christian), and our own interpretation of Scripture, it may just be our interpretation that is incorrect.

This was the case with geocentrism, when the Church rejected the evidence of God's Creation, as presented by scientists, because it conflicted with *their* interpretation of Scripture. After all, there were many verses which told them that God created the earth at the center of His creation and all was built around it, along with a number of other verses which, they believed, confirmed the fixity of the earth. And, further, the theological implications if the Earth *not* being the center around which all spun, and instead just being one planet among many, was simply contrary to both the text and the message of the Scripture, they believed.

The Church believed that geocentrism was as well supported by Scripture and as necessary to Christian theology as Creationists feel today about a young earth and the falsity of evolution. The Church was wrong then, as we all know now. It was not Scripture that was wrong, it was just their interpretation that was wrong. They eventually correctly allowed scientific evidence to inform their understanding of Scripture and changed their interpretation of that Scripture accordingly. Yes, even if this evidence was coming from secular humanists.

The majority of Christians, especially outside the US, have already acknowledged the import of this lesson and have reviewed and accepted evolution and an old earth, and have changed their interpretations (if, indeed, their interpretations needed changing, since literalism is another of those viewpoints not very common outside the US).

 

[GodSaves]

Are there times when we as Christians should believe agnostic scientists interpretation of evidence when it contradicts scripture? Thus changing our interpretation of scripture, which changes some of its meaning. The Bible teaches of testing all things against scripture. All things that come in contradiction. Did you test evolution, before you accepted it and changed your interpretation, against the scriptures? When you found conflict, you change your interpretation of the scriptures, instead of rejecting the theory of evolution. The Bible teaches you reject man's word when it conflicts with God's Word, not change your interpretation of the Bible to comply with man's word.

Vance where are these verses located in the Bible that says the earth is the center of God's creation, if you don't mind citing a few please?


Just out of curiousity, has science seen the ends of the universe? Can science say, conclusively that the earth is not in the center of the universe? I think this might suggest that science knows where the universe 'begins and ends' so to speak, so they can accurately say the earth is not in the center of it. Just a thought.

Anyways please share those verses.

 

[Vance]

I will have to go back and see what the Church as pointing to back then, but IIRC, there were a half a dozen or so passages that they pointed to, along with the theological implications [edit: some of the verses are cited by a modern geocentrist below]. Two points to keep in mind in the meantime:

1. The Bible does NOT teach, or insist upon, geocentrism. It was the Church that interpreted it this way, based on what they believed was a "plain and obvious" reading of the texts.

2. The point of controversy did not center around whether the earth was at the center of the entire universe, it never even got that far. What heliocentrism was telling them was that the earth was not even the center of our own solar system! It was just one of a number of planets orbiting around the sun. This seemed to the Church at the time as directly contradicting the Creation story. God created the earth first, then the sun and moon. So, how could the earth just be a satellite of the Sun? The same for the stars, they were put there to be a light for the earth. The earth was the star of the show, the centerpiece for which all heavenly bodies were made.

Viewed from their position, setting aside our current knowledge, you can see where they were coming from. In fact, there are still geocentrists to this day. They think that all the evidence for heliocentrism is just the result of agnostic and atheistic scientists trying to discredit the Scriptural account of creation. They believe all of you that accept these scientific theories of heliocentrism are just compromising Christians giving in to the worldly pressures, etc, etc. Sound familiar?


Here is an article written by a Christian astrophysicist who points out that there are still some Creationists who cling to geocentrism. I include this so that you can see that not only did the Church in the renaissance believe the Bible taught geocentrism, there are still some stubborn Christians who still do!

http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/geocntct.htm

He concludes as follows with words of reassurance to his listeners that geocentrism is not true and it is not taught by the Bible. What is important about this is that the author felt the need to write the article in the first place!

"These evidences indicate that there is no validity to the idea that the earth is the physical center of the universe. We as Christians have good reason to believe that the earth has a central place in God's redemptive plan, but it does not follow from this that our location is central. God warned the nation of Israel not to think that because He had chosen them they were particularly great in themselves. The situation here is similar.

But what about those passages in Scripture which seem to indicate that the earth is standing still? The strongest passages of this sort are those that speak of the sun rising, or the sun and moon standing still at Joshua's command. None of these provide any support for the recent form of geocentrism in which the earth rotates but does not move through space. All of these passages are being misinterpreted when we read them to mean that the earth cannot be going around the sun. The Bible writers are speaking from a reference frame located at some point on the surface of the earth, and this is exactly the case with modern astronomers when they speak of the time of sunrise at Philadelphia. We no more need to fear that the One who inspired Scripture is making a mistake in the one case than are the astronomers in the other."

Here is a quote from a modern geocentrist "organization":

"Since, as previously stated, theology is true science (God’s science), then only through theological sources can one be absolutely sure of answers. Also, scientifically speaking, how can anyone go outside the universe to observe what is actually happening? Since this is impossible, God has provided us with an unerring source of truth. The Holy Scriptures, certainly a primary source, are absolutely geocentric. There are a number of passages to support the earth-centered reality. Refer, for example, to Genesis and the Psalms. Note Psalms 18:5-6, 92:1, 95:10; also, Ecclesiastes 1:4-6 and Josue’s long day (Josue 10). Believe the truth revealed in perpetuity, when you read Psalm 103, which anticipates Copernicus, Galileo and Einstein, and all the other innovators: the earth…"shall not be moved forever and ever". (emphasis added)"

the site is here:
http://home.cfl.rr.com/rinaldo/hoax.htm

In the United States there is a society that defends Bible-based geocentrism, called the Association for Biblical Astronomy (founded in 1971 under the name of "The Tychonian Society"). The Association for Biblical Astronomy publishes a journal and books, and is led by a young-earth creationist who has a doctorate in astronomy from Case-Western Reserve University, Dr. Gerardus Bouw. Outside the U.S., in France and Belgium, a Catholic group called Cercle Scientifique et Historique, includes some members who support geocentrism.

Now, most of the creationist organizations have disavowed geocentrism, but I recall there was a controversy at either ICR or AIG when they made this official because some of their staunch members were geocentrists.

 

[Bonhoffer]

The theory of evolution underdemines Christian morality. If man is just an animal then what is wrong with him acting like an animal?

With evolution rapists are no longer destestable sinners but fine examples of dominant mammals. With evolution male pologamy is no longer rebellion against the Creator, but the natural way of ensuring that ones genes are passed on. With evolution one might say "Hey maybe black people are more stupid than white people because people dont need to be clever when they live in mud huts in the desert". The thing about this phrase is that under evolutionary theory it becomes a possibility. Under evolutionary law different intelligences based on race make perfect sense.
And then there is eugentics!

Almost every evil of the past 100 years has had somebody trying to justify it from evolutionary theory. There is hardly anything good about the theory.

 

[herev]

The theory of evolution underdemines Christian morality. If man is just an animal then what is wrong with him acting like an animal?

because God says not to? Because man is more intelligent than that? Because morality isn't based on evolution or creation? Because he has a conscience? Because evolution is no excuse to act any differently? Need we go on?

With evolution rapists are no longer destestable sinners but fine examples of dominant mammals.

Insulting at best, ludicrous at least, non-sensical certainly. Show me where any part of the theory of evolution promotes rape.

With evolution male pologamy is no longer rebellion against the Creator, but the natural way of ensuring that ones genes are passed on.

With Theistic Evolution, we still follow the same Bible you do, but again, show me how this true? And is it any more true than with LDS's historical support of polygamy, who believe in creationism?

With evolution one might say "Hey maybe black people are more stupid than white people because people dont need to be clever when they live in mud huts in the desert". The thing about this phrase is that under evolutionary theory it becomes a possibility. Under evolutionary law different intelligences based on race make perfect sense.

And yet, amazingly, Christians did a fine job of enslaving Africans--all the while using the Bible and their interpretation--long before Darwin lived. Strict literal Bible supporters still use the Bible to say that Blacks and Whites shouldn't mix, shouldn't marry, and shouldn't go to church together--all the while, rejecting evolution.

In fact, look at all of the atrocities committed by the church and its agents through the centuries--all without evolution.

So, tell me, were you kidding? You may even embarrass some of your fellow creationists with this one

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Bonhoffer, the same logic would say that the theory of gravity is against scripture because according to gravity people who fall off cliffs get splattered, and therefore there's nothing wrong with pushing people off cliffs.

It is a big mistake to derive morality from a scientific theory.

 

[Bonhoffer]

because God says not to?

Many atheistic evolutionists dont beleive in God.

Because man is more intelligent than that?

Maybe now. But would it have been right for man to rape and kill when they were still neoanderthals?

Because morality isn't based on evolution or creation? Because he has a conscience? Because evolution is no excuse to act any differently?

But in theistic evolution God set up the biological laws of evolution. These became the laws of nature. Gods laws of nature are that it is better to take than to receive because survival is based on it.
But then we have Gods spiritual laws where humans are told not to be selfish and to be good to each other. Why did God set up biological laws (where sin is encouraged) that contradict His spiritual laws? (where holiness is encouraged)
Now granted the law of this world is selfishness and greed. However it was the fall of Man, his rebellion which brought this world to be run by the law of the jungle. Earth is dig eat dog because man chose it in the Garden of Eden. But in TE when God made the earth He designed it as a dog eat dog society.

Insulting at best, ludicrous at least, non-sensical certainly. Show me where any part of the theory of evolution promotes rape.

I read a book in the libary on evolutionary theory. Now okay I can't recall what it was called and I do want to add the the writers werent implying that rape was morally good. The writer did however say that evolution favours men who are physically and mentally aggressive, thus male rapists are likely to survive and have most offspring. The writer did add that this was not excuse for people to do such things. However he did imply that evolutionary scientific laws do encourage rape and violence.

With Theistic Evolution, we still follow the same Bible you do, but again, show me how this true? And is it any more true than with LDS's historical support of polygamy, who believe in creationism?

There are loads of books and essays on evolution which show that evolution promotes pologamy. A man wants his genes to be passed onto the next generation so he sleeps with as many women as possible thus leading to more desecendents.

As for the LDS, they might be creationists, however they do not follow the Bible in the way most Christians do. In fact (sorry if this sounds unfair) they are not even Christians. They reject so many important Christian doctrines and put their faith in the BOM and their own prophets. They are so far from the truth that their beleif on creation won't make a difference if they are wrongly interepting the rest of the Bible anyhow.

And yet, amazingly, Christians did a fine job of enslaving Africans--all the while using the Bible and their interpretation--long before Darwin lived. Strict literal Bible supporters still use the Bible to say that Blacks and Whites shouldn't mix, shouldn't marry, and shouldn't go to church together--all the while, rejecting evolution.

These 'Christians' might be literal Bible supporters and racist. They might well even use isolated passages to support racism. However I beleive that Christians arent only supposed to read the Bible literally, but take it as a whole and in context. This is something those 'Christians' obviously didnt do because I have checked and checked again. There is no support for racism when Gods Word is read literally, in context and as a whole.
These people obviously rejected the teaching that we are all of One Blood. The Bible when read literally says that we are all decendents of Noah and the different races came about after the tower of Babel. But most strands of evolutionary theory, even TE, would reject that we are all decendants of 8 people who lived 4,500 (roughly) years ago.
Evolution rejects a world wide flood and would certainly reject the idea that the father of all races was one of a handful people to survive it.
Evolution shows that modern Africans are directly related to people living in Africa 45,000 years ago and not to some probably lightly tanned man who settled in the Middle East 4,500 years ago.

In fact, look at all of the atrocities committed by the church and its agents through the centuries--all without evolution.

And in many cases without the Bible too. The crusades and inquition were carried out when the Bible was in church hands and not available to the public. People were then fed heresys by the church such as salvation is given as a reward for killing Muslims etc... etc..... No where in the Bible does it say we have to kill to get to heaven. The Bible clearly states that salvation comes by faith alone.

Those atrocities which were carried out by people who did have an access to the Bible, were carried out by people who were clearly not reading it literally, in context and taken as a whole. In context for example the OT testament does not condemn mixed race marriages, but mixed faith/religion marriages. People reading about Solomans wives in context will see that when God is angry for Solomon taking "foreign women" as wives, it is not because they are of a foriegn race but of a foriegn religion. Storys such as Ruth show that there is no problem in marriage between Jew and Gentile so as long as they both worship the same God.
Racists who like to use the Bible for justification will be their own sinful hearts take everything out of context and select only isolated verses.
No anti-semite racist 'christian' will accept verses such as "there is no difference between Jew and gentile. The same Lord is Lord of all".
They will prefer to pick and choose verses to suit them. This pick n choose is something which I beleive evolutionary theory encourages. i.e I'm rejecting the world wide flood or a literal Adam etc... etc....
Once we reject a literal Adam (one which Jesus talks about) or Jonah or the flood; then why not reject all verses in the Bible which condemn racism.

So, tell me, were you kidding? You may even embarrass some of your fellow creationists with this one.

No. You have just misunderstood. I am not saying creationists are pefect. There are many Creationists that are racist, sexist, violent etc etc.... Bin Laden for example is probably a Creationist.
However it is impossible to reconcile racism with a literal, in context and take as a whole approach to the Bible. A racist would have to either reject literalism,the context or that all scripture is equally God breathed.