Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Evolutionary theory is racist

I'm not one to often use the "R" bomb, as I personally think it's just a trifle over done, but, surprisingly Christians are starting to come out of the woodwork and recognize the restriction of having a different opinion from the mainstream and the intolerance towards freedom of thought.

From Ray Comfort (who brings us The Way of the Master) comes the following.

From staunch evolution believers, who hold to their faith like a religion, Charles Darwin is exalted by them into papal infallibility. He is robed in pure white as he stands high upon the balcony of time, waving his hand to the faithful. A word from his lips is the gospel truth, and his great commission to true believers is to embark on a crusade, and bring down the swift sword of intolerance upon all who don’t embrace the true faith.

Yet Darwin was nothing but a racist, a bigot of a man, who held to the belief that black people are inferior to whites. This is what he said:

"At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

The Descent of Man, "The Races of Man" 1874, p. 178. The above is only one of many racist beliefs of Mr. Darwin. His white robe is hooded and stained with bigotry, and his clan rally to his godless cause with religious zeal. Watch them give a fiery defense of Darwin’s blatant racism.

So there you have it, evolution is based upon racist ideology, but more importantly I believe it continues to support racist ideology, that Negros are somehow lesser evolved than Caucasians. I feel it's important to state that when we talk about bell curves and the studies done by the Nobel laureate Prof James Watson, I agree with the basis that on average Negros are far more athletic, but may be less academically inclined than Caucasians, and Asians being better academically inclined than Caucasians. However, on an individual basis these rules do not apply, and we have to understand these empirical observations stand only when comparing two people of different races with all other factors the same, i.e. gender, age, height, weight etc. I know this is going to open a huge can of worms, but these observations can indicate using evolutionary theory that some of the races may have evolved at different rates to others, and hence racial epithets like "monkey" rear their ugly heads. So, if you don't want to think of any race or group of humans as being lesser evolved than another, I'd suggest giving up the evolutionary spin and thinking more along the lines that humans were created separate from apes, in their own right, and in the image of a higher being, and while we may not all be exactly the same in every ability, we are all different, but still equal.

In saying no to Racism, think again about Evolution.

2 comments:

David said...

Just because Darwin may have held that non-white races were primitive does not mean that the theory of evolution is racist by any means. It has been built upon and tweaked for many years and by many differnet people beyond Darwin.

I would be interested to know how the theory of evolution through natural selection, by itself as an empirical theory, can ever attach labels like 'superior' and 'inferior' to anything at all? ‘Superior’ and ‘inferior’ are value judgements, and do not belong in the realm of objective truth: a realm which an empirical scientific theory like that of evolution tries to stick to. The theory simply (or not so simply) holds that any random mutation in an offspring which gives that individual being an advantage in its environment leads to that individual prospering, reaching breeding age while others perish, thus passing this mutation on to its offspring who in turn have the same physical features allowing it to prosper or ‘dominate’ - and in this way certain blood lines prosper and certain don't.

It is simply based on the fact, which was later to be amazingly re-enforced and elaborated upon by genetic studies, that in every process of reproduction, random genetic mutations naturally occur (in the DNA of the spawned beings, the DNA basically dictating how the being with grow, i.e., ‘bigger brain’, ‘bigger left arm’, ‘retardation’ even…). If such a random mutation builds the being to better adapt to its environment (i.e. helps it to deal with or even perceive reality in more dynamic ways), then survival is more likely to be guaranteed in the dog-eat-dog world of nature where the ability to deal with reality in ever more dynamic ways compared with your competitors leads to survival.

"I'd suggest giving up the evolutionary spin and thinking more along the lines that humans were created separate from apes, in their own right, and in the image of a higher being, and while we may not all be exactly the same in every ability, we are all different, but still equal."

But how are can we be said to be equal if we are "not all...exactly the same"? It’s that simple. I’m not saying that a further conclusion necessarily follows from this fact - that we are not all the same - but the fact itself obviously remains.

Alex said...

Actually, natural selection and evolution are entirely different. Natural selection is about the selection of specific genes which are considered competitive and suitable to the environment, while evolution is about the improvement of a species through some advanced means like mutation i.e. a single celled organism into a multi celled organism. Its a typical misconception. Evolution is about increasng genetic information in a species, while natural selection is about decreasing genetic information in a species. (Natural selection sees the removal of genetic diversity by removing specific traits from the community).

Assuming evolution - that is an increase in genetic information, you can assume that certain communities "evolved" at different rates based on assumptions made upon technocratic advances.

Evolutionary theory and supporters of it, tend to support programs like eugenics, believing that if we are all animals, we should only allow the fittest to survive. This of course becomes open to interpretation, and could quite easily include progroms.