Follow Me On Twitter!

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

The Theory Of Evolution Is Based On Racism

While studying the claim that the theory of evolution has a basis in racism, I came across this article:

Click here: Skin Color: Handy Tool for Teaching Evolution

So notice a few things about evolution:
  • It is believed that man's origins began in Africa
  • Early man was dark skinned and covered in hair
  • As we evolved we lost the hair
  • As we migrated out of Africa we evolved into fairer skinned people
Wait a minute? So evolutionists believe that lighter-skinned people are further evolved than dark skinned people? That sure is what it sounds like. Wouldn't arguing that one race is more evolved than another be teaching that one race is superior to another? It sure sounds like it.

Now notice what creationists believe.

  • God created Adam and Eve
  • All people of all races are descendants of Adam and Eve
  • All are equal in God's sight (Romans 2:11)
Interesting isn't it?

The article is correct in one aspect, and that is why people of different skin colors were dispersed about the earth. Those in sunnier climates tend to be darker because of the folate problems that lighter skinned people have in those climates. And lighter skinned people do better in less sunny environments because of the vitamin D problem this would have posed for darker skinned people.

But to suggest that light skinned people are further evolved is pure racism and has no part being taught to our kids.

11 comments:

Oliver said...

The article you cite does not state this at all. Have a nice day.

Oliver said...

The article that you cite does not mention this at all. Have a nice day.

LoneWolfArcher said...

The article I cite is an example of the racism built into the theory of evolution. However, you are right, it doesn't come out and put it as bluntly has I did.

However, evolutionists almost all say that man evolved originally in Africa, then migrated to other areas of the globe. Just because the article I cited doesn't admit this fact doesn't mean it isn't true.

Michael Hawkins said...

You have a pretty fundamental misconception here. You're ascribing normative ideas to what it means for something to evolve. All that is being said here is that lighter skin evolved in response to a different environment. It can equally be said that those in Africa who traversed to more sun-soaked areas evolved darker skin.

"Evolve" does not mean that something is intrinsically better in the sense that an A is better than a B on a test.

LoneWolfArcher said...

I wouldn't say that it is a fundamental misconception. Evolution is about the improvement of species to they point that they become other species. What you are arguing for is adaptation. Sorry, but adaptation is NOT evolution.

Evolution says we evolved from a hairy, dark-skinned species to a smoother, lighter skinned species. Creation says humans were created and then adapted based on their environment.

Your argument is for creation and you don't even realize it.

Anonymous said...

I'm curious. How has Michael Hawkins argued for a 6 day creation by stating that adaptation produces features better suited for a local environment?

By the way, adaptation isn't evolution, but it a component of the theory. Other components of the theory of evolution are (but not limited to) mutation, natural selection and genetic drift. Each component has solid evidence backing it up, thus making the theory of evolution a solid theory for the purposes of making biological predictions.

And you say that all are equal in the eyes of God. As a universalist, I agree with you. This is not diminish the facts supporting evolution.

LoneWolfArcher said...

Anonymous, not sure what you are arguing here. Which isn't surprising considering you are a self identified "universalist". I guess if you aren't going to take a bold stand then making a bold argument is also too much to ask.

I also take umbrage to your "Each component has solid evidence backing it up, thus making the theory of evolution a solid theory" statement.

Those components you mention never provide evidence of once species evolving into another. Only that a particular species can be strengthened or weakened by those processes.

In fact, mutation in humans is an interesting study considering that not a single genetic mutation in the human genome is positive. Mutation therefore is really an argument against evolution (continual improvement) not for it.

Oliver said...

Hello. I claim responsibility for the 'Anonymous' posting above (I'm not sure why it didn't go through as my own name).

I was trying to argue that the theory of evolution is a well supported and trustworthy theory. It is as true as gravitationaly theory (which helps our planes to fly) or atomic theory (which powers our homes and, sadly, makes bombs).

I want to ask you an honest question: With plenty of evidence supporting evolution, there should be some evidence out there that will convince you. I want you to think deeply about this: What do you need to see to convince you to change your mind?

For example, we do have evidence of genetic mutations with resulting benefitial features. 'MCM6' is a gene found in humans that is assocated with lactose intolerance. Way back in our history, every human was lactose intolerant. Roughly 5000 years ago, a beneficial genetic mutation happened in the MCM6 area that allowed some humans to be able to tolerate milk. Genetic mutations are slow to propogate (even after thousands of years) but today roughly 30% of adult humans can drink milk with no trouble.

Got milk? Then you have a genetic mutation with benefits.

Since I've written too much anyway, here's a good link explaining transitional forms: http://bit.ly/pldMod

LoneWolfArcher said...

I will check on your claim related to lactose intolerance. However, to me that is not proof of evolution. Remember, evolution claims that it all started with a single cell organism, and evolved into all of the species we have today, including humans.

So, to prove evolution, we'd need evidence of the ability for one species to "mutate" into another entirely different species. Short of that you have adaptation, life-cycles within species (pollywog to frog), and, I will give you based on MCM6, genetic mutations.

Oliver said...

Hopefully this is a new field of study for you. There is sufficient evidence to make the claim that we evolved from single-celled organisms, but it is far too much to summarize in this tiny little box (my apologies). Go forward with this attitude: "Show me evidence, for I will only changed my mind based on facts!" The science is there.

I'd like to point out that accepting evolution does not make one a racist, an atheist, or immoral. It does make one more scientifically minded. It also helps you to understand new advances when they come out. Claiming evolution is not true has the opposite effect: you will be less prepared to understand new advances in science, and that can lead to a fear-based response. Fear-based responses are never useful to a scientist.

Best of luck to you.

LoneWolfArcher said...

I have studied this for over 20 years. I have reviewed the "evidence". I am 100% confident in saying that evolution is simply not true.

It was created by a man as a way of removing God out of the equation. God created the earth and all life in it. Or, lightning struck a primordial ooze and a single cell organism was the result.

It seems to me that the latter takes as much faith to believe as the former considering no one has ever observed that process (nor the first). Nor any of the processes since that supposedly resulted in humans.

Thanks for the discussion on this. Although we aren't breaking new ground here, this debate has been waged time and time again over the course of decades.

I will agree with one thing you said: "I'd like to point out that accepting evolution does not make one a racist, an atheist, or immoral." That is true. Since the person that accepts evolution did so because of racism, atheism, immorality, or a combination of the three. In other words, accepting evolution doesn't make you a racist, atheist or immoral, but racism, atheism and immorality causes you to accept evolution.