Creationism is just as racist as evolution

| 104 Comments

Creationists, whether YECs or IDers, just can’t help falling over themselves in their eagerness to tar the theory of evolution (and Darwin) as racist. This is nonsense for any number of historical reasons. Racism obviously had existed long before Darwin. Darwin, though he sometimes expressed statements that are racist by modern standards, was remarkably non-racist by the standards of his age and treated people of other races without prejudice, as well as being passionately opposed to slavery (he was far less racist than most Christians and creationists of the time). It’s true that evolution was pressed into service to provide justification for racism, but the same could be said of Christianity. Such arguments were invalid and are not a logical consequence of evolution. Nor is there any truth to the smears that evolution caused the Holocaust.

But the strangest thing about creationists trying to link evolution and racism is that creationists generally accept some of the theory of evolution. Not all of it obviously, but the major creationist organizations all accept the idea of natural selection and evolution within ‘kinds’ (a non-scientific creationist term that, in practice, is defined to be whatever amount of evolution creationists are willing to accept). Answers in Genesis even enthusiastically affirms that it has no problem with the concept of natural selection.

Creationists don’t accept that evolutionary change can accumulate indefinitely and that humans could have evolved from apes or earlier primitive animals, but that’s not the scale of change involved in the evolution of all living humans from their most recent common ancestors. Human racial differences are minor and easily explained by natural selection. To creationists, humans are a ‘kind’, and human races evolved within that kind. So if the theory of evolution is racist, that makes creationism equally racist.

104 Comments

I was surprised to read the headline. More in the absurdity that either creationism and evolution as being racist. It is hard to wonder why some one would make such a statement. Creationist never cease to surprise me. People use logical disjoint to justify their racist view, Creationist use logical disjoint to claim that creationism is science. The difference here is creationism tries to make a claim that is utterly false.

Interestingly enough, modern human population genetics shows that the majority of the genetic variation in humans is not partitioned according to race. Therefore, modern evolutionary theory provides no basis whatsoever for racism. Now if creationists would bother to read the scientific literature they would realize this and stop making ridiculous claims. But what are the odds of that?

Whatever TOE props think of their scientific myth, it sure was thought to have racist implications in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As well, it was surely a precious gift utilized by a few well known murderous dictators to clease our little blue ball of a home from countless millions of unfit members of certain ‘groups’ within a single generation.

Yes, yes. We can now claim it was all such a horrible misunderstanding of TOE. The tentative understanding of the 18th century gave way to the clarified understanding of the 20th century. So, even though Darwin was mistaken in his racist leanings (if not all-out, die-hard racism), all has been remedied and put to rest (they cross their fingers just in case).

Well, one thing is clear: TOE has not done a better job than religion at educating humanity about the nature of its being. It is curious though, why TOE props are so hot to get into the philo biz anyway.

I sure do hope for the sake of humanity that ID will help put the TOE genie back in its bottle and let it float out to sea for the dolphins to play a bit ‘a water polo.

An ID proponent calling the theory of evolution a scientific myth?! Haha, I needed a good laugh! Thanks for the same tired old BS steven. How about telling us all about the testable hypotheses of ID that are going to blow away the theory of evolution?

Please do not feed the troll!

it was surely a precious gift utilized by a few well known murderous dictators

Ok, Steven, some evidence please. Give us a direct quote from Hitler about the theory of evolution. He used Christianity as justification, just as neo-nazis do today. There are many books on the subject of the Third Reich, have you read any?

Well, one thing is clear: TOE has not done a better job than religion at educating humanity about the nature of its being. It is curious though, why TOE props are so hot to get into the philo biz anyway.

We both agree that religion has added nothing positive to the prospect of humanity. Christianity seems to deride any attempt at man’s ability to modify his behavior outside the confines of God’s guiding hand. We’re told it is futile. The fact that the evolutionists are actually attempting to decode morality, has your curiosity aroused. Get curious about Mitras if you really want an awakening.

Throwing in a backhanded holocaust reference is so ‘last century debating tactic’ that it thoroughly undermines anything else you might posit and exposes your predilection for religion hooey over sound science.

Enjoy.

I’ve gotten into a few debates with creationists recently and I’ve always been surprised they don’t use this argument. It’s unfortunate because it’s easier to counter since the argument requires no knowledge of science.

Steven: IQ tests had racist implications in the early 20th century. And, famously, the American Psychological Association had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder until 1973. Of course new discoveries get warped to reflect existing bigotries. But you know what? We learn, and we change, and our science changes with us.

mrg said:

Please do not feed the troll!

I disagree. Kan Hamm pounds this message home on a weekly basis. The troll here reflects a typical creationist “argument.” There is no basis to it whatsoever. It is utterly vacuous. People are naturally xenophobic, and they will use any justification for hate. What this troll has done is very, very typical of the type of argument use by creationists.

A better tactic, at least in dealing with this “argument”, is to go right for the Bible, which has God promoting and endorsing slavery, racism, genocide, and murder directly. And of course there is ample literature prior to 1859 of folks using the good book as a justification for slavery and racism. Heck, the whole Southern Baptist sect owes its existence to religious support for slavery.

The troll’s argument is sad, but then, this whole issue is nothing more than troll vomit – the creationist version of swift-boating evolutionary biology by lying and lying and lying over and over until people actually believe it.

Oh please. You can sit there and play “pin the tail on the racist” until the cows come home, but he’s not listening, and nobody here believes him. You’re preaching to the choir.

Now if you just enjoy arguing with people, who am I to object? Don’t think I’m going to stand in you way, have at it. But if you think you’re doing anything but entertaining yourself … sorry, you’re not. Really. Don’t kid yourself. You’re not.

Amen mrg!

It’s true, mrg. You’ll never persuade steve of the truth. He’s got his hands over his eyes and his fingers in his ears and he’s going lalala for all he’s worth.

But two points: one, asking anyone who’s interested in the facts to remain silent in the face of gross untruth is asking too much. And two, steve is not the only one who might be reading.

Dave Luckett said:

And two, steve is not the only one who might be reading.

And to all those trolls, remember you need look no further than a Nazi soldier’s belt buckle to see that Hitler is an albatross worn by christians, not “Darwinists” [sic].

Dave Luckett, ‘his hands over his eyes and his fingers in his ears…’? This is extremely difficult; impossible? The amount of physiological contortion borders on the mental contortion required to believe as Steve believes. Then again, as the ‘Newton of ID theory’ often visits faith healers, so the Steves often involve themselves in mental self mutalation. Rob.

KP said:

Dave Luckett said:

And two, steve is not the only one who might be reading.

And to all those trolls, remember you need look no further than a Nazi soldier’s belt buckle to see that Hitler is an albatross worn by christians, not “Darwinists” [sic].

I mean, it’s very odd to come to the conclusion that Hitler was inspired by Darwin when Hitler’s Anti-Semitic speeches read and sound as though they were plagiarized from Martin Luther’s “Of the Jews And Their Lies”

Dave Luckett said:

But two points: one, asking anyone who’s interested in the facts to remain silent in the face of gross untruth is asking too much. And two, steve is not the only one who might be reading.

Aw c’mon, do you really think anybody would bother with PT if they weren’t either the choir or the trolls?

I don’t know about the rest of you. But I feel the number of trolls have dropped in PT in the last few months. The slugfests and flamewars used run for many dozen posts are less common now a days. Many familiar trolls, Farfarman comes to mind, have gone MIA or AWOL.

May be the puppeteers (Creationist predatori majoria) have decided to give some time off for their puppets (C. vulgaris) for much needed rest, recovery and rejuvenation. No point in keeping all the electrons in the excited state in this post election period. May be they will come back in force during the next mid-term election season, 2010 March to November.

Or may be the economy is taking its toll. Is there any demographic data available about the breakdown of science supports and creationists? My hunch is that most science backers have more stable jobs in academia and R&D companies. The creationists might be mostly drawn from entrepreneurs, sales, marketing, and similar lines of work. That could explain economy taking a bigger toll on the creationists than on the science supporters.

There a couple opinion pieces in today Courier-Journal (Louisville)

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti[…]02/903250394

that I found pleasantly amusing. Of course my comments were quickly and vigorously addressed with personal attacks. If you’re bored and looking for some light entertainment you may want to wander over.

Personally, I think the strangest thing about creationists trying to link Evolution to racism is it’s complete lack of bearing on the question of the truth or falsehood of Evolution.

Imagine an alternate history where there was no racism before Darwin and there was a complete written record of the acceptance of racism based on Darwin’s theory. How would that have any effect on the physical truth or falsehood of his theory?

I think the proper scientific answer to a Creationist accusing Evolution of causing or promoting racism is: “What’s your point?”

I would point out that up until just a few years ago, Bob Jones University, one of the primary purveyors of “creation science” textbooks in the U.S., prohibited interracial dating by its students. The racism of Bob Jones University was obviously not in anyway based on evolutionary theory, nor was the racism of Jerry Falwell, who preached that segregation was mandated by the Bible.

Steven, it is not the purpose of evolution to educate humanity on “the nature of its being”. That’s the job of religious faith, NOT SCIENCE. Don’t tell me you’ve been reading more risible mendacious intellectual porn from my “dear” fellow Brunonian, David Klinghoffer, have you? Both you and David need to be reminded that the Nazis were inspired more by centuries of anti-Semitic hatred towards the Jews and such “classics” as the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” than they were by “studying” either Darwin’s writings or that of his cousin, Francis Galton (who coined the term “eugenics”):

steven said:

Whatever TOE props think of their scientific myth, it sure was thought to have racist implications in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As well, it was surely a precious gift utilized by a few well known murderous dictators to clease our little blue ball of a home from countless millions of unfit members of certain ‘groups’ within a single generation.

Yes, yes. We can now claim it was all such a horrible misunderstanding of TOE. The tentative understanding of the 18th century gave way to the clarified understanding of the 20th century. So, even though Darwin was mistaken in his racist leanings (if not all-out, die-hard racism), all has been remedied and put to rest (they cross their fingers just in case).

Well, one thing is clear: TOE has not done a better job than religion at educating humanity about the nature of its being. It is curious though, why TOE props are so hot to get into the philo biz anyway.

I sure do hope for the sake of humanity that ID will help put the TOE genie back in its bottle and let it float out to sea for the dolphins to play a bit ‘a water polo.

Robert van aBakel said:

Dave Luckett, ‘his hands over his eyes and his fingers in his ears…’? This is extremely difficult; impossible?

Just tried it. I can cover my eyes with four fingers of each hand and stick my thumbs in my ears. A good thing no-one was looking, though. And I’m glad I didn’t try shouting lalala…

The Southern Baptist school (k-12) I attended for 2 years allowed whites only and claimed this was biblical.

Ravilyn Sanders said:

The slugfests and flamewars used run for many dozen posts are less common now a days. Many familiar trolls, Farfarman comes to mind, have gone MIA or AWOL.

I ran into Fafarman elsewhere and he’s as noisy as ever, but you’re right, there seems to be a lull in the fighting on PT.

Of course Fafarman is an extreme case – he’s so completely obnoxious that he’s been booted off all the lunatic-fringe forums. I like to think of him as Larry “Banned By Santa Claus” Fafarman.

What baffles me is why creationists make so much of the “evolution is racist” argument. If one compared the racial attitudes of a large random sample of creationists and a large random sample of evolutionists, I’d guess that it wouldn’t be the evolutionists who would consider potentially racist implications of their theories a bad thing.

Robert van aBakel said:

Dave Luckett, ‘his hands over his eyes and his fingers in his ears…’? This is extremely difficult; impossible? The amount of physiological contortion borders on the mental contortion required to believe as Steve believes. Then again, as the ‘Newton of ID theory’ often visits faith healers, so the Steves often involve themselves in mental self mutalation. Rob.

Huh? I can easily do this. No contortion involved.

CJColucci said:

What baffles me is why creationists make so much of the “evolution is racist” argument. If one compared the racial attitudes of a large random sample of creationists and a large random sample of evolutionists, I’d guess that it wouldn’t be the evolutionists who would consider potentially racist implications of their theories a bad thing.

Please do not use the word evolutionist. It is a term created by the Cdesign proponentists in an attempt to drive a wedge between science supporters. It is a term that suggests ToE is just another ism, a mere philosophical position. Most science supporters think these word games are silly and are willing accept neologisms. But I think it is a very potent weapon in the hands of creationists. Most general public knows nothing about these things. Anything that makes it sound less scientific and more philosophical is a big disadvantage.

That’s “evilutionist” anyway.

Just as I click through the pages I’m currently following, I come across this on-topic post from a creationist blogger:

The word race in the types of humans use does not appear in the Bible. It does not recognize a racial distinction. it says “And hath [God hath] made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” Acts 17:26 (KJV) Racism is really a evolutionist term.

All man’s many variations can easily come from two mid brown people. Well maybe a few more. Not Adam and Eve but Mr and Mrs Noah and their three sons wives.

There is a great article on this at http://www.answersingenesis.org/art[…]ferent-races

The quote is from here: http://deborahdrapper.com/evolution[…]ps/#more-299 UK readers may recognize the girl who owns the blog from a recent TV appearance in which the BBC filmed about her and her family life and religious views. The commenter quoted above is her father. If any of you choose to comment over there, please be civil and try to get as much substantial information across as you can in simple terms. I think this family is relatively honest and open about views and evidence from both sides, and they may yet be convinced. Or at least the daughter and her readers.

Stanton said:

Likewise, a car repair specialist who tells you that your car has ceased functioning due to a cracked generator pulley is using methodological naturalism, whereas a car repair specialist who tells you that your car has ceased functioning due to an infestation of magical, invisible car gremlins that only he and his associates can see is not using methodological naturalism.

Actually if one deal with the functioning and repair of machines, one invokes gremlins quite often. However, they are not invoked as a solution, simply as an expression of frustration at the lack of a solution.

MrG http://www.vectorsite.net

Either way, never trust a repair shop that specializes in “gremlin exorcisms”

Just refrain from feeding Gizmo after midnight…

Henry J said:

Just refrain from feeding Gizmo after midnight…

And WHATEVER you do … DON’T get them WET!

MrG / http://www.vectorsite.net

gmv said: Funny, that seems to describe quite a few of the people that frequent here. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think? We all have our axioms and presuppositions from which we base our worldview. Theism is an axiom that no one can prove wrong. Naturalism is also an axiom that many accept, again without the possibility of ultimate proof of its validity as a worldview. The difficult part is putting aside those presuppositions to try and really see the other person’s point of view, rather than just name-calling, which seems to proliferate here.

Actually, very little name-calling goes on here. When we use terms such as ‘idiot’, ‘ignorant’, and ‘liar’, it’s because they are accurate depictions of the posters. Consider the statement you just made - it’s full of errors (hence, we might describe you as ignorant, or stupid).

Theism is not an axiom. Theism is a collection of worldviews which, inasmuch as they make testable statements, can be proven to be wrong - not merely alternative, but actually wrong.

Christianity, for example. Islam, for another. These two worldviews (not axioms, dimwit) make testable statements. Both have been proven to be wrong.

Do try to keep up.

Rilke’s Granddaughter said:

Christianity, for example. Islam, for another. These two worldviews (not axioms, dimwit) make testable statements. Both have been proven to be wrong.

Do try to keep up.

You mean like, for example, the various tales of miraculous miracles with no other eyewitnesses, or how both claim to be religions of peace and or love, yet, adherents of both constantly perpetrate acts and “sins” of horrifying evil in the names of their respective holy figures, even though aforementioned holy figures are extensively quoted as saying that committing evil and “sin” in their names is repugnant and unforgivable?

Stanton said:

…even though aforementioned holy figures are extensively quoted as saying that committing evil and “sin” in their names is repugnant and unforgivable?

I don’t know, the holy figure represented by at least one of those two “axioms” is one of the biggest instigators of things like genocide, manipulation, pillage, and malevolence in the universe. See pretty much any of the Old Testament books for evidence.

gmv said:

Theism is an axiom that no one can prove wrong. Naturalism is also an axiom that many accept, again without the possibility of ultimate proof of its validity as a worldview. The difficult part is putting aside those presuppositions to try and really see the other person’s point of view, rather than just name-calling, which seems to proliferate here.

You miss the point. This is not about theism, as a general philosophical idea, and I speak as one who has defended it in this blog several times. I agree, theism cannot be proven wrong, which is why it is not science, for scientific investigation is by definition limited to propositions which can be falsified.

My response, which you quoted, was not to a poster who defended theism, but to one who described the Theory of Evolution as “myth”, and attempted to defend biblical creation. That poster was indeed deaf and blind to evidence, as described.

For the history of life on Earth and its explanation by the Theory of Evolution is not a question of point of view. Details aside, it is not a matter over which reasonable people can reasonably disagree. It is not a matter of interpretation, of subtle distinction, or of philosophical speculation that all life is commonly descended, that it originated billions of years ago, that it evolved, and that we human beings are a product of this process. These are plain and simple facts, so amply supported by evidence as to be beyond reasonable doubt.

If you accept that, we have nothing substantial to disagree about. If not, expect a fight.

We do not accept Evolution within kinds.…we accept VARIATION within kinds. You are equivocating the word, you should definitely know better than that if you are a Scientist.

Natural Selection was invented by Edward Blythe, a Young Earth Creation Scientist, Charles Darwin plagiarized his thoughts and thrust them illogically into into the ancient Greek Philosopher, Anaximander’s paradigm of Evolution. Little did he realize that Natural Selection did not cohere with Evolution, Scientists of this present day such as Jonathan Sarfati have been able to spot that error, as have I.

Dr. Lewis said:

We do not accept Evolution within kinds.…we accept VARIATION within kinds.

What do you mean by ‘a kind’? Does it correspond with a species, a genus, a family or is there some other means of delimiting it?

Natural Selection was invented by Edward Blythe,

From a reading of Blyth’s (no ‘e’) work, it seems that he considered natural selection to be purely stabilizing, for example “The original form of a species is unquestionably better adapted to its natural habits than any modification of that form;” (Edward Blyth, 1835). My main conclusion, however, was that he was in serious need of a good editor as he had no obvious thesis, theme or progression in his writing. Incidentally, I could not find the phrase ‘natural selection’ anywhere in his writing. Did he actually use it?

Little did he realize that Natural Selection did not cohere with Evolution,

Is that so? Please clarify how it does not cohere.

Dr. Lewis said:

We do not accept Evolution within kinds.…we accept VARIATION within kinds. You are equivocating the word, you should definitely know better than that if you are a Scientist.

The problem is that creationists, including yourself, have refused to define the term “kind.” It’s hard to make accusations of equivocation stick when you, and other Creation “scientists” play fast and loose with “kind” in order to arbitrarily pigeonhole whole taxa, whether it’s “camel kind,” “lizard kind,” “dog kind,” “human kind,” or “bacteria kind.”

Natural Selection was invented by Edward Blythe, a Young Earth Creation Scientist, Charles Darwin plagiarized his thoughts and thrust them illogically into into the ancient Greek Philosopher, Anaximander’s paradigm of Evolution. Little did he realize that Natural Selection did not cohere with Evolution, Scientists of this present day such as Jonathan Sarfati have been able to spot that error, as have I.

Bullshit. Next, you’ll be telling us that Darwin then recanted his sin of inventing Evolution as he lay on his deathbed.

Please provide the documentation that shows Charles Darwin plagiarized Edward Blythe, or we are going to rightly assume that you’re just another Liar for Jesus. Furthermore, didn’t Jesus say something about committing sin, such as lying, in His name was appalling and unforgivable?

Dr. Lewis said:

We do not accept Evolution within kinds.…we accept VARIATION within kinds. You are equivocating the word, you should definitely know better than that if you are a Scientist.

And what, pray, would be the difference between “variation” and “evolution” within a kind, given that Answers in Genesis happily endorses the fact of natural selection and frequently says that they accept (micro)evolution within kinds. There isn’t one; it’s just a different word for the same thing. But hey, don’t take my word for it, here’s what AIG thinks:

AIG Wrote:

Evolution can be used in the sense of change in a species by natural selection. This is often referred to as microevolution and is accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good observational science.

Which is exactly the point I was making in my the original post. If creationists accept that racial differences can arise through natural processes, then they are just as racist as evolutionists.

I guess this is all just semantics really. “Evolution” can have many meanings depending on who’s using the word.

Seriously I have to ask 1 thing. Who really cares what is racist and what is not anymore. Why is everyone so concentrated on racism. Look if everyone would just completly drop the thought of racism and shut up because some person with a dif colored skin stole their job then chats like these would never need to happen.

This isn’t just about the worldviews this is about a personal matter thats never going to change enless everyone drops it together. Personally i’m atheist. But I’m not going to walk into a church and yell at them saying that their religion is wrong. I will however defend my beliefs if I am made to do so. The more everyone argues over these things the more we want to come up with to defend our own beliefs. If I believe ANYTHING from the bible it’s the fact that we have a choice. It’s their opinion and honestly if they want to say certain things are racist usually it’s because they’re racist and trying to hide it by pointing out other peoples flaws.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jim Foley published on March 24, 2009 5:24 PM.

Tyrannosaurus rex was the previous entry in this blog.

Scientists to Texas BOE: Teach Evolution Right! is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter