‘Ape’ slur against Australian indigenous footballer Adam Goodes sparks anti-racism backlash—yet censorship still prevails
Published: 30 May 2013 (GMT+10)
Round 9 of the 2013 AFL (Australian Football League) season will likely go down in history as the moment that something changed in the public consciousness in that country—whether for the better or not, only time will tell. Dubbed the ‘Indigenous Round’ in honour of the players of Aboriginal ancestry in the League (and in the wider Australian community), the opening game on the Friday night was certainly going well for indigenous Sydney Swans star champion1 Adam Goodes, with a personal best-field performance against arch-rivals Collingwood (also known as ‘the Magpies’, from suburban Melbourne). That is, until an incident occurred in the final quarter, which so soured Goodes’ night that he left the field, choosing to sit out the rest of the game alone in the dressing room, not even joining his teammates on the field for the post-game lap of victory.2
The incident was triggered by a Collingwood supporter sitting near the perimeter fence shouting something at Adam Goodes. He reacted immediately to her words, pointing her out to security staff, who then escorted her out of the ground, to be questioned by police. With the match being broadcast on television, news reports were able to replay film footage of the entire incident, though the exact words that had evidently so upset Adam Goodes were not audible. Reports simply said that it appeared to be a ‘racial slur’, from a 13-year-old girl.
Adam Goodes celebrating the Sydney Swans 2012 AFL Grand Final win.
Public reaction decrying this incident was immediate, and widespread. Magpies president Eddie McGuire personally visited Adam Goodes in the Swans’ dressing room to offer his support, on behalf of the Collingwood Football Club. It very quickly became a huge cause célèbre3 in the media and the wider blogosphere, as people wondered and tried to find out how foul the language of the evidently racist abuse must have been, to have had such an impact. However, a cautionary note was presented by one newspaper columnist, Andrew Bolt, who knew from his own painful experience (of a court case concerning two of his published articles) what it was like to be publicly accused of racism:4
“I abhor racism and despise racists. In fact, I consider people who shout racist abuse not just vicious but so stupid that I’d be mad to let them determine anything in my life. In this case, I am uncomfortable that one teenage girl with a potty mouth is given the power to overshadow a game and a celebration witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people at the ground or on TV …
“ … We are now jumping at shadows. To believe we can abolish racism so completely that not even a single teenager, carried away in the heat of a moment, will ever say anything racist is foolish. It is the plan, maybe, of a totalitarian or social engineer, but to react like this is not the act of wise people who understand the crooked timber of humanity.
“ … I have no problem with Goodes wanting her shut up or evicted. I just think turning this into such a massive symbol or cause célèbre lacks a sense of proportion. I repeat: she is just one teenage girl, and we don’t even know yet what she said.”5
It was left to Adam Goodes the following morning, when he addressed the media, to publicly speak of what the girl had actually said, that had so affected him:
“I’m pretty gutted to be honest. The win, the first in 13 years [against Collingwood at the MCG], to win by 47 points against Collingwood, to play such a pivotal role just sort of means nothing. To come to the boundary line and hear a 13-year-old girl call me an ‘ape’, and it’s not the first time on a footy field that I’ve been referred to as a ‘monkey’ or an ‘ape’, it was shattering.”6
Shortly thereafter, Adam Goodes received a telephone call from the girl, and accepted her apology.7 She confirmed to the media that she had indeed shouted “way to kick ya ape” to Goodes when he came within earshot, but hadn’t intended it as a racist taunt:
“I was really upset that we were losing and I just said something really rude and I shouldn’t have. I don’t know why it came out, I just kind of meant it as a joke and then he heard it and he thought it was racist. I’m sorry for what I said, I didn’t mean it in a racist way.”8
Reaction to this news of what the girl had actually said, fell into two main categories.
First, many people were completely bemused. Here’s a sample:
“I fail to see how the ‘ape’ comment is racist.”—Ivan F.9
“Forgive my ignorance but I’ve never even thought of calling someone an ape in a racial abuse context.”—‘Kram81’10
“I played as a ruckman in the Northern Football League (old Diamond Valley League) and was called a big ape or a big gorilla every week. I thought it was because I was just a big, sexy, skillful specimen. I had no idea I was being racially abused!”—‘Killer of the Burbs’11
[Reproduced here exactly as published—Ed.] “this is a nothing story, ive been called a cheetah many times by varies women thoughout my life and ive never been affended, i cant see what the difference is between being called a cheetah and a ape or for that matter a dog, cow, snake or fish? are apes lesser animals then cheetahs and/or humans and as thus why adam goodes was offended?”—‘Whit3y’12
Second, there were a large group of people who recognized ‘ape’ as a racial slur, who expressed their astonishment at those who couldn’t see its significance, e.g.:
If you weren’t so ignorant you would know the word ‘ape’ is a racial slur and is a disgusting name to call an aboriginal person.—‘Blood Bath’13
I am offended by your ignorance. If you can not see the bigger issue at hand here then it is evidently clear you have either a very naive view of the world or you are just a plain dum dum.—LovettRyderLloyd14
I’m surprised that people who can’t see a link between calling an Aboriginal man an ape and racism are actually highly enough functioning human beings to use a computer.—Gough15
However, it was noteworthy that they did not explain why ‘ape’ should be ‘racist’ when said by a white person to someone with Aboriginal heritage (but not when the other way around). Nor were there apparently any journalists in the mainstream media willing to explain it either. Only on the internet blogs could one find occasional references to what was really at issue. For example, commentator Sinclair Davidson, writing for Catallaxy Files, came closer to ‘mentioning the unmentionable’ than most:
“That brings me to what we’re all going to be talking about this weekend—not how well Indigenous players are doing in the AFL or how much work the AFL has done to promote Indigenous players and the like. Rather an incident last night when Adam Goodes pointed to a female Collingwood supporter who was subsequently removed from the stadium. She had made some comment that he had taken exception to and it was speculated that this was a racist slur.
“Okay—so this morning it turns out that the female Collingwood fan was a 13 year old girl who had called him an ‘ape’. Adam Goodes is 33, he is a dual premiership winner, Brownlow medallist, All Australian, and superstar of the game. Now what can we agree on? First, what she did was rude, poor behaviour. No question. Sure Goodes was angry about it. He is an adult and, I suspect, like many adults he finds rude children very annoying. Also she was escorted from the stadium—no problem there either. The MCG is private property and they can exclude rude people at their pleasure.
“But is it racist? Many individuals are having a go at me on twitter for questioning whether calling an Indigenous man an ‘ape’ is actually racist and not just rude. For many people it seems self-evident that it is racist. But nobody can say how or why. The ‘best’ story I’ve heard is that Social Darwinism ranks ‘people of colour’ below animals.”16
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. But note that Mr Davidson referred to ‘Social Darwinism’ rather than the dreaded ‘e-word’, evolution. ‘Evolution’ is the colloquial ‘elephant in the room’ here, that no-one wants to mention, that no-one wants to dare question (while on the other hand it’s publically acceptable to abhor ‘social darwinism’). That’s despite the fact that the associating of ‘ape’ with ‘people of colour’ as racism is because of evolutionary teaching during the past century-and-a-half. Since Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859 and The Descent of Man in 1871, many have implicitly accepted his suggestion that some people are ‘more evolved’ than others. In that context, it was easy for people of European ancestry to forget that western achievements in science, literature, music, government institutions, etc., arose in large part out of the energising freedom, mutual trust, and call-to-fruitfulness ideals (and more—see The biblical roots of modern science) provided by a biblical worldview. Instead, many people of British and European ancestry imagined that their ‘evolutionarily advanced’ societies reflected their superiority over other ‘races’—especially black ‘races’.17
From Whalley, et al., ref 18.
Human evolution, according to a modern textbook used in Australian high-schools.18 Note the subtle colour change of the creature from a ‘black’ ape to a ‘white’ human. Is it any wonder that a 13-year-old might refer to Adam Goodes as an ‘ape’, when schoolchildren are presented with such an image as ‘fact’?
Thus the beguiling popular drawings that have long shown an evolutionary transition from dark monkey/ape to white human have become inherently the popular perception/view—and these images are still being presented as ‘fact’ in modern textbooks.18
So today, because evolution is presumed to be true, ‘ape’ taunts directed at ‘people of colour’ from people of evident European ancestry is construed as ‘racist’, i.e. demeaning black people relative to whites.
However, as the mainstream reporting of the Adam Goodes incident demonstrates, public discussion of the obvious evolutionary undertones is a media taboo!
This phenomenon of censorship19 of the ‘e-word’ in such public cases of outcry against racism is not new. In media coverage of the ‘racist row’ of November 2009 concerning a photo of Michelle Obama (wife of the US President) that had been doctored to make her features look like those of a monkey, none dared discuss why it was racist, or why similar associations done with George Bush photos were not considered racist.20 Similarly with the much publicised quest of European football authorities to stamp out ‘monkey chants’ and ‘ape grunting noises’ directed by spectators towards players of black African origins.21 And again in the infamous international cricket incident involving Indian player Harbhajan Singh’s calling Australia’s Andrew Symonds (who is of ‘Caribbean descent’) a ‘monkey’.22
It’s interesting to see the sorts of responses generated in the ‘blogosphere’ on the very few occasions that any observer did courageously point out the racism-evolution link. Here are two who dared to point out the truth:
“Well it isn’t so much racist as ‘evolutionist’. Believers in Darwinian evolution hypothesis* hold that the darker skinned people are closer to their ape ancestors i.e. less evolved. (Don’t get angry, this is the frank truth).”—Chris M.23
* “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life”
“In schools today, as young as primary school, my children are being taught that we are all apes, or that we come from apes. I find this form of teaching highly offensive. I’m a creationist, I believe in God and that he created all things. To call someone an ape, is referring to everyone isn’t it, white or black, that’s what the schools teach anyway. Children are being educated, the wrong way.”—Eatosk24
That last sentence is especially apt given an earlier blogger’s comment, before it was known that the ‘racial slur’ against Adam Goodes was the word ‘ape’, who wrote incredulously, “Sounds like she’s only mid teens, what the h___ has she been taught in school?”25 The responses to the likes of the above astute commenters were immediate, hostile, and dismissive:
“Time to head back to school. We share a common ancestor.”—Micksy27
“Maybe you should check your facts again mate. We share a common anscestor with apes, we are NOT apes, we did not COME from apes. [Double expletive deleted—Ed.] does no one in the world understand EVOLUTION!?!?!?!? You creationists don’t know the ACTUAL definition of evolution, then attack it for all your are worth. Good luck with killing all the strawmen.”—bobsyouruncle28
“The more I read your post the more I am disturbed by the level of science education in this country. We might as well be in southern USA. … You have been educated….the wrong way.”—bobsyouruncle29
Au contraire, these correspondents could do with some education themselves, about what the theory they’re trying to defend actually says. E.g. the Australian Museum public display on human origins makes it clear that evolutionary theory posits that humans are apes,30 and high-profile evolutionary paleoanthropologists have disdain for those who would play the ‘we did not come from apes’ line.
But probably of even greater interest is the hinted debate-stifling threat in the posting from the moderator on the blog when creationist correspondent ‘Eatosk’ had referred to the teaching of evolution to children …
Your post/s must address the topic and if you want a general racism discussion, you should head on over to SRP.
No more warnings.
… and this resulting plea from a blogger, to the moderator:
“Respectfully, it is impossible to address this incident in isolation, free of the wider context of what racism is or isn’t, the wider ramifications, everything. We will be limited to a thread on the facts. She said something. Goodes got upset. She got thrown out. This incident does not exist in a vacuum; it exists in a conceptual grey area of social interaction that can only be hammered out by meaningful discussion. I think some leeway needs to be given, as long as people are respectful and not abusive, to make any ‘debate’ as meaningful as possible.”—eldorado31
White House photo by Chris Greenberg
Missing from the mainstream media reports of the 2009 Michelle Obama racism saga was an explanation of why likening America’s First Lady to an ape or monkey is considered “racist”, while earlier likening then-President George Bush to an ape was not. As our articles Do monkeys play football? and Michelle Obama racism row—what’s it based on? made clear, it’s all to do with evolutionary teaching. Amazing though it might (therefore?) seem to black people worldwide, Mrs Obama’s own husband, US President Barack Obama, has in fact been an outspoken advocate for the teaching of evolution.
Thankfully the moderator agreed to let debate proceed. A good thing, for ‘eldorado’ is right about the need for meaningful debate, as the evolution elephant-in-the-room needs to be brought front-and-centre into the discussion. This moment in Australia’s history really is an unprecedented opportunity of potentially greater significance than the recent European ‘football monkeys’/Michelle Obama/cricket-‘ape’ sagas, which revolved around people of black African origin. The present Adam Goodes incident is really the first time that someone of Australian ‘indigenous’ origin has been the centre of such an anti-racism row. The heightened significance is because the destructive influence of evolutionary teaching on the way Europeans regarded and treated Australia’s Aboriginal people has arguably had far greater impact than on any other people group. In the evolutionary hierarchy popularized since Darwin, it’s the Australian aborigines who have been regarded as the ‘lowest of the low’. To European scientists, they represented a unique ‘living laboratory’, an unprecedented opportunity to study our evolutionary past by taking scientific samples in the present. Let’s spell out what that meant in practice: Aboriginal people were shot and their body parts shipped back to the UK and Europe for scientific study, under the justification of ‘evolution’.32,33 And the insidious influence continues today, e.g. with the push by some to create conditions where Aboriginal people have welfare incentives to communally occupy lands isolated from wider society, where they may ‘preserve their culture’—but instead the sad reality is that of a “soul-destroying existence”.34
Half-recognizing the problems; avoiding the solution
While the mainstream media assiduously pussy-footed around any reference to the deeper issues, their only fallback position to justify their anti-racism cry was to appeal to the emotional effects felt by Adam Goodes, as being the reason why calling him an ‘ape’ was a no-no. And this, too, seems to have been Goodes’ own defence of his actions, at least according to the public transcript of his media conference, as he went some way towards trying to reduce the girl’s being made a public scapegoat:
“It’s not her fault. She’s 13, she’s still so innocent. I don’t put any blame on her. … I can guarantee you right now she would have no idea how it makes anyone feel by calling them an ‘ape’. I think it was just the name calling that she was doing, and unfortunately it cut me deep, and it affected me so much that I couldn’t even be on the ground last night to celebrate a victory, to celebrate Indigenous round. I’m still shattered, personally, it’s tough. … She’s uneducated. If she wants to pick up the phone and call me and apologise I’ll take that phone call, and I’ll have a conversation with that girl about, ‘you know what, you called me a name, and this is how it made me feel’. And it’s school stuff. … I felt like I was in high school again being bullied, being called all these names because of my appearance. … I don’t know if it’s the lowest point in my career, but personally, I don’t think I’ve been more hurt by someone calling me a name than I was last night. Not because of what was said, but because where it came from: a 13-year-old girl. It just hit me that it’s not a Collingwood issue, it’s not an AFL issue, it’s a society issue. It’s an issue of what are our parents teaching our kids?”6
Yes, it is an issue of what kids are being taught, though I wonder if Adam Goodes realizes it’s the teaching of evolution as ‘fact’ that is the problem. A public comment attributed to Collingwood president Eddie McGuire was singularly unhelpful:
“The Magpies president was angered and saddened at Friday night’s events, but that ‘evolution, not revolution’ was vital in alleviating future racism.”35
Subsequently another public comment by Eddie McGuire was particularly unfortunate, coming just days after the Swans player had been ‘vilified’ by the ‘ape’ taunt. On breakfast radio, the Collingwood president suggested that Adam Goodes be invited to promote the ape-centred King Kong—The Musical.36 McGuire later apologized unreservedly, saying he was “devastated” that he had been the one to bring Friday night’s incident back into the public eye.37,38
Amid the frenzy of public comments throughout the saga, most of which endorsed the response of authorities to the incident, some voices dared to question whether the official reaction really solved, or resolved, anything. The aforementioned columnist Andrew Bolt, on hearing that the ‘racial slur’ was the word ‘ape’, and that police detained and ‘grilled’ the girl for two hours without her guardian present, was incredulous:
“Police were seriously considering charges against a 13-year-old for calling a man an ‘ape’? Are we insane?”39
Recognizing the problem, and embracing a solution
Here’s the nub of the problem. When the media reports that ‘ape’ or ‘monkey’ taunts are racist, they’re accepting a deep-seated evolutionary worldview that some people groups are less evolved than others—specifically, blacks are less evolved than whites. Of course they don’t dare put it so bluntly—it’s simply assumed. Against that backdrop, authorities not just in Australia but around the world are trying to stamp out such innuendoes. This is a classic example of society reaping the consequences (e.g. racism) of what it has sown (evolutionary teaching). Many in authority, it seems, have accepted (if not overtly promoted) the teaching of an evolutionary worldview, yet are unwilling to accept its consequences.
One blogger astutely drew attention to the ‘divided thinking’ at play in the public to-and-fro following the Adam Goodes incident:
“So—Adam isn’t an ape, except that we all were, or are or something. But we shouldn’t say it anyway. But we should have good manners and be polite. Probably because we are humans and in our culture at least, we have this ‘golden rule’ idea running in our heads.”—‘Ellen of Tasmania’40
The ‘golden rule’ idea is of course founded in Jesus’ words, as recorded in the Bible. There’s no logical justification for such altruism if evolution is true—i.e. evolution means it really is a dog-eat-dog world, where some humans can be considered to be ‘evolutionarily more advanced’ than others.
So, if it’s really time to get serious about curbing racism, then the taboo ‘elephant in the room’ topic of evolutionary teaching, and its horrific societal consequences, has to be brought into the firing line. An opportunity was missed on ‘Sorry Day’ in 2008 when the speech pre-prepared for Australia’s Prime Minister at the time, Kevin Rudd, had its references to eugenics and evolution excised out at the last minute—the classic example of high-level censorship.41 Given the events of the past weekend, leading into this ‘Reconciliation Week’,42 it surely represents a great opportunity to declare that it’s time for a true ‘Sorry Day’ from Australia’s leaders. This time there should be an apology for having sidelined the Bible’s true account of origins in favour of the falsehood of evolution, and with evolutionary teaching’s blood-stained legacy against Australia’s Aboriginal people exposed to the light of day.
However, given Australia’s current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is a self-professed atheist, it’s probably not likely to happen anytime soon.
Of the many books authored by Dr Carl Wieland, One Human Family is the one he describes as his ‘magnum opus’. And it’s not hard to see why. It deals head-on and in-depth with the racism issues undermining cultures around the world today. As the Adam Goodes saga shows, most are eager to quell racism—but the underlying issues are not being addressed, whether through deliberate censorship, or ignorance. In Chapter 17 of One Human Family, “Racism today—and hope for tomorrow”, Dr Wieland provides the ‘key to the future’ (p. 365 ff.). He would love to see this drummed into “the collective subconscious of every society: forget what you think you know from evolutionary conditioning—there is absolutely no scientific justification for the belief that someone is inferior or is to be treated differently because of belonging to people group A instead of group B.” At the same time, the book avoids ‘political correctness’ and firmly grasps the nettle as it deals with the reality of group differences in social and other outcomes. One Human Family can be purchased via our online store.
- Adam Goodes has won two Brownlow Medals, widely acknowledged as the highest individual honour in the sport of Australian Rules football. The Brownlow Medal is awarded annually to the ‘fairest and best’ player in the AFL during the home-and-away season, as determined by aggregate votes cast by the officiating field umpires after each game. Goodes won in 2003 and 2006. Return to text.
- Suspected slur against Adam Goodes mars indigenous round, http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/suspected-slur-against-adam-goodes-mars-indigenous-round/story-fndv7pj3-1226650266237, 24 May 2013. Return to text.
- A cause célèbre (lit. French: famous case) is an issue or incident arousing widespread controversy, campaigning and heated public debate. Return to text.
- In Australia today, having even very modest Aboriginal ancestry can qualify you for various economic benefits set aside for indigenous people. Our book One Human Family explains on p. 110 that a group of very light-skinned public figures identifying as Aboriginal launched the court action against Andrew Bolt and his newspaper employer for naming them in this context. Return to text.
- Bolt, A., Goodes should not let one Collingwood teenager have this power, http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/goodes_should_not_let_one_collingwood_teenager_have_this_power/, 25 May 2013. Return to text.
- Adam Goodes media conference, http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-05-25/what-adam-goodes-said, 25 May 2013. Return to text.
- Adam Goodes receives an apology from Pies fan who made racial slur, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/adam-goodes-receives-an-apology-from-pies-fan-who-made-racial-slur/story-fnca0u4y-1226650404962, 26 May 2013. Return to text.
- Girl apologises to Goodes, ‘did not mean to be racist’, http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/05/25/16/17/girl-apologises-to-goodes-says-she-did-not-mean-to-be-racist, 25 May 2013. Return to text.
- From a letter to the Queensland newspaper Courier Mail, 28 May 2013, p. 22. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-53. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/adam-goodes-gutted-after-13-year-old-girls-racial-slur-who-called-the-sydney-champion-today-to-apologise/story-fni5fan7-1226650256245. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-38#post-28391917. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-38#post-28391824. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-38#post-28391917. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-44#post-28395394. Return to text.
- Davidson, S., Dreamtime weekend, http://catallaxyfiles.com/page/3/, 25 May 2013. Return to text.
- Williams, G., ‘A Civic Biology’ and eugenics, Journal of Creation 20(3): 123–127, 2006. Return to text.
- Whalley, K., Neville, C., Robertson, P., Rickard, G., Phillips, G., Jeffery, F. and Ellis, J., Science Focus 4, Pearson Educational Australia, Melbourne, 2005. Return to text.
- Whether self-imposed, or by editors. Return to text.
- Michelle Obama racism row—what’s it based on?, 8 December 2009. Return to text.
- Catchpoole, D., Do monkeys play football? Creation 29(3):12–14, 2007. Return to text.
- It’s just not cricket!—‘Monkey’ jibe considered racist; ‘donkey’ apparently not, 8 January 2008. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment at http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/05/25/dreamtime-weekend/. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-41#post-28392722. Return to text.
- Comment from reader ‘Pykie’, posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-7#post-28385816. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-41#post-28392722. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-39#post-28392212. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-39#post-28392217. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-40#post-28392306. Return to text.
- Humans are Great Apes, http://australianmuseum.net.au/Humans-are-apes-Great-Apes, acc. 28 May 2013. Return to text.
- Reader’s response to moderator’s warning, posted at http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adam-goodes-confirmed-racial-slur-by-fan-apology-made-and-accepted.1008006/page-40#post-28392440. Return to text.
- Wieland, C., Darwin’s bodysnatchers: new horrors—People deliberately killed to provide ‘specimens’ for evolutionary research, Creation 14(2):16-18, 1992. Return to text.
- Cosner, L. and Bates, G., Racism—a consequence of evolution?, 7 April 2011. Return to text.
- Wieland, C., One Human Family, Creation Book Publishers, Atlanta, USA, 2011, chapter 14: “Indigenous issues”. Return to text.
- Teenage girl apologises for racist insult in letter to Adam Goodes, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/teenage-girl-apologises-for-racist-insult-in-letter-to-adam-goodes/story-e6frg6n6-1226650580225, 25 May 2013. Return to text.
- Collingwood’s Eddie McGuire makes ‘King Kong’ gaffe over Adam Goodes, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/collingwoods-eddie-mcguire-makes-king-kong-gaffe-over-adam-goodes/story-fnca0u4y-1226652825692, 29 May 2013. Return to text.
- Eddie McGuire says he’s ‘devastated’ after making on-air gaffe linking Adam Goodes to King Kong musical, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/national-news/eddie-mcguire-makes-on-air-gaffe-linking-adam-goodes-to-king-kong-musical/story-fncynjr2-1226652776987#ixzz2Uebl6wOr, 29 May 2013. Return to text.
- Eddie McGuire apologises for King Kong comment regarding Adam Goodes, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-29/eddie-mcguire-apologises-for-king-kong-comment-regarding-adam-g/4720152, 29 May 2013. Return to text.
- Bolt, A., Goodes should not let one Collingwood teenager have this power, http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/goodes_should_not_let_one_collingwood_teenager_have_this_power/, 25 May 2013. Return to text.
- Reader’s comment posted at http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/05/25/dreamtime-weekend/comment-page-4/. Return to text.
- Wieland, C., A sorry day—with an unlikely twist, 13 February 2008. Return to text.
- National Reconciliation Week, http://www.reconciliation.org.au/nrw, acc. 27 May 2013. Return to text.
My wife and I were watching the game live and could not believe the reaction at the time. More disconcerting than the possibility a player had been abused by a fan was the horror at seeing a clearly young teenage girl being removed from the ground by security staff, without an adult/parent/guardian. Her face was shown on live television to an audience of millions, She was described by the many commentators as 'a racist' and accused of leveling 'an abhorent racial slur' on the player (before any information about the ape comment was known). To hear the next day, that the girl was held and questioned for two hours by police and security staff, without any advocate/guardian present is truly shocking.
A player of sports whose ego is so delicate he cannot take a slur no matter of what sort is one I would not want on my team. Football line backers routinely make remarks calculated to throw the opponent off his game. It would be odd if all the defensive line stalked off the field because of insults.
I find the girls comment disturbing, She most likely has heard things like that from her peers or even family members. Where were the adults in all of this. yes she is a child and therefore can be still molded and formed into a wonderful woman. To often the adults say this is 'youthful indiscretion" I say is it bad manners in the wake of the adults who should show more restraint in how they address others. I am pleased that the girl had the courage to swallow her pride and call and apologize. I find that rewarding, but of course depends on how she voiced her apology. I do not believe in forcing children to say "I am sorry", but at the same time I do feel it is right and proper to tell them why they should not say this or that. I was never allowed to say anything about even a pimple of someones nose. My dad told me never to point out imperfections on another. I see them, but I keep my comments to myself and hopefully this will leave an impression on her to be more sensitive in the future.
Greg Baum, a senior sports writer, and associate editor with The Age (definitely mainstream media) didn’t quite mention the word evolution, but was willing to say regarding the Adam Goodes incident,
“From one white man to another, ''ape'' mostly is a moderate, if unimaginative insult. Between friends, it might also be a rough endearment. From a white person to a black person, ''ape'' is more pejorative by far. It is freighted with centuries of treatment as a sub-species, …”
I’m not sure if you would call it mainstream media or not, but Noah Riseman, writing an opinion piece for ABC’s The Drum, said:
“Non-Indigenous Australia may not see why calling Adam Goodes an 'ape' is a racist slur, but it is important that we all understand the offence stems from a long history of racial discrimination. …
The year 1859 brought us Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. From the late 1800s, scientists and then anthropologists argued that Aboriginal people were a missing link in evolution - a step between monkeys and humans - and many argued that Aboriginal people were scientifically closer to apes than humans. From the late 1800s these ideas morphed into Social Darwinism and the belief that Aboriginal people were a dying race.
The 1930s ushered in concerns about the rise of Aboriginal people of mixed descent, ideas of blood quanta, the notion of biologically absorbing Aboriginal people, and of course the Stolen Generations. You get the picture. Much of the "race science" popular in Australia was similar to what Adolf Hitler was espousing in Nazi Germany.
So what does this mean? It means that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have a long history of being compared to apes. That is why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people do not like being called apes and it is a racist slur.”
It only adds weight to the fact that if a human being is referred to as an 'APE' and it unsettles an individual, is it not fair to assume that we naturally do not like to be aligned to being related to animals, even though Darwinian science says that we are?.....who is being racist here,... that 13 year old girl or the so called scientific establishment that peddles these racial views to our children in the school room, indeed that this aboriginal footballer along with us all, supposedly did in fact evolve from apes!. I say take this racial slur up with the education department. Quite logically, are they not the real proponents of racism and racial slurrage?
Michael Richards, better known as Kramer in TV's Seinfield, makes an interesting point in his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act< You call me 'White boy', 'Cracker', 'Honkey', 'Whitey', 'cave man', and thats OK, but when I call you 'Nigger' 'Kike', Towel Head', 'Sand Nigger', 'Camel Jockey', Beaner', 'Gook', or 'Chink', you call me racist!. i am proud [to be white]but you call me 'racist', Why is it that only whites can be racist?
I had emailed letters to the editors of most major papers when this incident happened pointing out evolution being to blame and evolution being nonsense-- not surprisingly no paper published it as far as I am aware. Evolution is an untouchable myth in the secular world, so when I called it for what it was, no editor was willing to let my comments through.
Re,the little boy's comment about "monkeys", my daughter when she was three saw her first dark-coloured person enter a supermarket: "He's not allowed in there is he?"
I was shocked as a young mum but it shows that we need educating from a young age that all people are equal. It was "pure" innocence as she had never been close to anyone other than olive or white skinned. I am studying biology at university and it is really hard to sit through lectures sometimes as I can see the proof of God's magnificence and not some accidental happening.
For those who state that racism is the "intent to racially denigrate", you are forgetting that you cannot know the "intent" of the 13 year old girl. (Not a mind reader, and not God) Adam Goodes was insulted, she said something insulting, but was her intent racial? We will never know for sure.
My question is, once everyone is "educated" that calling a man of colour an ape is somehow racist (even though calling a white man a neandertal isn't)... then... is it now racist to ask a man of colour if they would like a banana? What was the "intent" of the person asking? You will never know.
It’s about time that people realised that all people, even those from the most so-called 'primitive' tribes of the world, have been made in the image of God. How dare any of us disparage what God has created. True, not all peoples are as 'civilised' as some but it can also be said that many who think they are civilised (and at the top end of some evolutionary table), are not so civil with the remarks they make about others. Racial features, culture and customs may classify us as being different from each other, but underneath all that we are the same: human beings made in the image of God. Not everything about any race, culture or customs is good but nobody is making things better for anyone by resorting to verbal abuse and putdowns. We could all do with improvement.
Jesus said that it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34). Perhaps, then, we should not only mind what we say but also watch what’s in our hearts. Proverbs 4:23 says, “Keep (guard) your heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues of life.” I suggest that the issue that has been all the rage in the news last week has sprung from what’s in the hearts of many and has erupted through their tongues. This is just another example of why people’s hearts need cleansing and renewing by God.
To call an indigenous person an ape is not the same as calling an Anglo-Australian an ape. When an Anglo-Australian is called an ape, we are likening him to an ape in his manner at the time the comment is made. Perhaps the person stumbled about clumsily or said some dumb remark or monkeyed about in some buffoonery. Perhaps even here, it would be well to make it plain that one is just joking. The analogy to an ape applied to such a person is not the same way it is used with regard to aboriginals. The way “ape” has been used with respect to aboriginals is to imply that they are somehow sub-human: at the bottom of the evolutionary ascent of man – if one believes in evolution. This is the sort of thing that aboriginals have put up with over a long time and no amount of thick skin will prevent such barbs wounding the spirit. Like many indigenous people, and others I can think of, what even seems like words said in jest, racial comments are deeply hurtful and, though no bones get broken, the spirit of the victim is sorely wounded - “a wounded spirit, who can bear?” (Proverbs 18:14)
I was at the football game in question, on that Friday night. Adam Goodes was everywhere that night. I commented to one of my sons that Goodesy seemed to be everywhere that the ball was 'going to be'. He really was the man of the match. We celebrate his athletic prowess.
We were about 100m from the incident andcould see that something as going on. We were 4 rows from the boundary. During the game I heard lots of other people hurling abuse at the players, umpires and other spectators. I guess, that is what I expected at an emotionally charged AFL game at the 'G.
Maybe I should have taken offence when someone referred to a player as a 'retard' and another as a 'spastic'. Having a disabled child who is rejected and victimised in various quarters of society, maybe I had a right to feel offended at the vilification of disabled people.
However, I put it down to 'small minds' and 'ignorant comments' in the heat of the moment in a passionate sport. I also recalled hurting others' feelings, with ill conceived comments, especially in my youth.
I feel saddened that Adam Goodes was 'gutted' by the foolish comments of a 13 year old. I know how horrible it is to be taunted by kids. As an adult I have chosen to see the vicious comments of angry kids in their right light - vicious comments of angry kids... not some systemic abuse program designed to vilify a people group.
Seems to me like a storm in a tea-cup. However, I am a marginalised white male and what would I know?
In his book "What Evolution Is" the celebrated evolutionary author and Harvard professor Ernst Mayr didn't even make an attempt to conceal the racist component of evolution. Mayr confidently asserts that Africa is the cradle of human existence and then has the gall to cite as evidence for his claim all the apes, gorillas, and monkeys that are still in Africa. Alternately, writes Mayr, the hominid branch of the family (who became white Europeans) migrated north. He even has the temerity to include maps in his book for those happenings of millions of years ago. Needless to say, the educated professionals I've met over the years who happen to be black and born in Africa don't subscribe to evolution. This incident in Australia provides one of those opportunities to hit this issue hard - and there can be no allegation that creationists are the ones who've created this controversy. This is manifest political correctness only this time the politically correct stirred the pot before they realised they would open to criticism one of their sacred tenets. As for the football player, this would be a good time for him and all people of color to get honest and ask themselves if they've been party to this myth of evolution that puts them down as inferior, less evolved specimens of human life as Mayr infers.
This whole incident and the following one where the Collingwood (for the record I am a Collingwood supporter) president (Mr Eddie McGuire) suggested that Adam Goodes could promote King Kong is the result of the ingrained effect that the lie of evolution is having on society (brain washed). People are just accepting that evolution is fact, and that dark skinned people are on a lower level of the evolutionary scale and hence inferior. Evolution is the dumbest theory I have ever heard promoted, I just wish people would stop and think it through logically, how impossible and stupid it is.
I think it is an unwise approach to try to discredit evolutionary theory by linking this incident to it, particularly when evolutionary theory gives no reason to single out a particular race as being closer to apes than another.
The use of "ape" to denigrate non-white races was in use long before Darwin. See Charles White’s An Account of the Regular Gradation in Man, and in Different Animals and Vegetables (1799), where he says “In whatever respect the African differs from the European, the particularity brings him nearer to the ape.”
I suspect the Bible has been used to justify racism far more than evolutionary theory has.
We have long pointed out (e.g. in the article Evolution and social evil):
Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) was a leading evolutionist and Marxist, as well as a staunch anti-racist. Yet he admitted:
‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’
Reference: Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127–128, 1977.
As for your claim that the Bible has been used to justify racism, see: The Bible versus Slavery and Apartheid
An evolutionist writes; "We share a common anscestor with apes, we are NOT apes, we did not COME from apes."
- perhaps he'd like to explain the infamous icon of an ape turning by stages into a human being. Why is it this image is continually being used by evolutionists if it doesn't accurately reflect the theory?
A really excellent read is a book titled "Does God Believe In Atheists" by Oxford professor John Blanchard.
For anyone interested in the topic of the creation vs evolution debate, the history and philosophical foundations and principles of atheist-evolution - this is a must read.
It is easy to read for people like me, very informative, quotes many of the leading atheist thinkers over the centuries and ultimately shows why the Biblical narrative can be trusted.
Another extremely interesting viewing, though not directly tackling racism are DVD's that can be purchased from CMI, "What They're Not Telling You About Astronomy" series also known as "Our Created Solar System" which is volume 1 of the series. I watched it for the first time a few weeks ago....awesome.
Seriously, if you are reading these post and you are an atheist, you know full well that you can do whatever you want as there is no consequences in the context of an everlasting punishment for the things that humans do, say, believe, promote and so on. Morals and ethics will mean zip in 'the big squish'. That includes racism. There is absolutely no argument that life as we know it means nothing, 'if' the atheist view is true.
Now I speak as an ex-atheist, morals, faith, actions, attitudes, truth and knowing Jesus and what He has done for us on that Cross means everything. You have to get this right, regardless of how much brown pigment you do or do not have.
This is the One question that you must get right before you breathe your last, firstly for yourself and for those you meet for the rest of your life.
Hi Chris from Canada. I think I can see from where you are coming. But I guess you would need to ask yourself (ourselves) is the post-modern evolutionist either embarrassed or ignorant of legacy that materialistic evolution has offered the world in terms of race relations? A similar problem can be asked of the legacy of The Crusades or Puritan fanatics to the history of The Church, this historical tarnish cannot be ignored by Christians today but invokes a question back to knockers of Christianity, were the Crusades or the burning of witches and heretics consistent with the teachings of the foundations of the Christian faith? Remember Jesus challenged His disciples on how they viewed the Samaritans and even the Old Testament challenges thinking and treatment toward foreigners given in The Law and God's commission to Jonah to go and preach to the Assyrians. 'Race', or other people groups were not a measure of superiority over another people group.
Which brings me back to measuring the evolutionary legacy with the same measure. Is racism at odds with the foundations of materialist evolutionary? A summary of this can be found in the full title of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".
Now I don't to be insulting or clasp at straws but who would be referred to as the 'favoured' races in 19th Century Europe? It is known that Hitler built Mein Kampf on this foundation. Australians went of to fight the Japanese in the jungles of Malaya and New Guinea to find out that the then enemy were not an inferior race as they had been told.
But it is The Bible that clearly states, we all have the same human ancestry.
Cheers, Craig - a former atheist.
Like a few have commented already, this article misses the point. The issue here is on racism, not debating evolutionary theory. This "deep-seated evolutionary world view" you mention isn't an acceptable ideology, nor a current one, and is not the stance of the scientific community.
Others could easily twist the views of many in the religious community as a vilification of the community as a whole. The bigger picture on Racism does have some ideological roots within the history (as in very early thinking) of the sciences, but is clearly not the stance of the scientific community of current times.
Come on CMI, racism is an issue, not a tool to use against your opposing cause. It may just be my opinion, but this article promotes discriminatory actions within itself, rather than promoting tolerance.
No, Chris, it's you, in your headlong rush to defend evolutionary theory in this and other recent comments you've sent to us, who is missing the point.
Your phrase, "isn't an acceptable ideology", so commonly heard today, goes to the heart of the issue, exposing the post-Modernist's blind spot to the fact that their "feet are firmly anchored in thin air".
Can man, by himself, determine what is, or isn't, "an acceptable ideology"? And if so, which man? You? Or someone else?
How would you have gone to Adolf Hitler and explained to him that his policy of removing up to 11 million 'useless eaters' from the population was 'not an acceptable ideology'? How would you have explained to the Mayor of Bowen that his policy of assisting the European scientific community at that current time to obtain Aboriginal 'specimens' was 'not an acceptable ideology'? How would you explain to young pregnant women today who are seeking abortions that killing of babies either inside or outside the womb is 'not an acceptable ideology'?
It seems the astute observation from 'Ellen of Tasmania' referred to in the main text of the above article was too gently expressed for you to discern its significance. Perhaps you don't know what is the 'golden rule' that she referred to? We can see that Adam Goodes is aware of it, for he said in his media conference (Ref. #6):
"My mum taught me to treat people the way I wanted to be treated."
Surely most readers of our website know where that comes from (Matthew 7:12). Even Charles Darwin admitted that such a 'golden rule' could not possibly have come into existence without "the love or fear of God".
Hi. I am a high school student, and was interested in this article. I believe in creation, but would like to raise a question that may seem to come from an pro-evolution point of view, about the image showing human evolution according to a modern textbook. I believe this image is simply a stereotype. My high school Science teacher is a believer in evolution and I am sure he would say that skin colour shows adaptation to environment, not advancement in evolution. How would you reply to this? I understand your reasoning that while this image may simply be a stereotype, it can be understood in the wrong way.
Also, the comment by 'bobsyouruncle', published in the article, states that we share a common ancestor with apes, but did not evolve from them. I always thought that all evolutionists believed we evolved from apes. Which theory is the more common, and by how much? There are people who say they are Christians in all different denominations, but surely there is not one single denomination that is Christian, while all the others are not. In the same way, can evolutionists read the alleged 'evidence' in different ways and still be evolutionists? I have many more questions, mostly stemming from conversations with my Science teacher that I would love to ask later! I would be honoured to receive a reply to these questions.
Just to finish off, I'd like to share how an acquaintance of mine was insulted racially in a similar situation to this one. He's an Aboriginal Australian and a Christian, and at a football game he saw a little kid pointing at him and heard the kid ask his mum, "Why's there a monkey here?" (I'm sorry if I can't quite recall exactly how I was told his story.) He was obviously offended. As Sas. E commented, we are fearfully and wonderfully made: all of us!
Hi Bronwyn. Thanks for your comment. You raise a lot of questions, which are pretty much answered elsewhere on our website. Note that our feedback rules, which you would have seen to the immediate left of the message box as you were typing your comment, included a request that your comment NOT be a question! We have a different avenue on our website for submitting questions to us, once you've exhausted our Q&A pages and the capacity of our searchbox to find your answers on our website. Anyway, a good starting page is Created or evolved?
Re your dismissing of the ape-to-man image as a simple 'stereotype', I'm sure that that's not the way that the textbook intended it to be taken! As for the mooted evolutionary ancestor of humans, chimps, orangutans, gorillas, etc., while some leading paleoanthropologists aren't shy in saying that all of these 'apes' are descended from a common 'ape' ancestor, other evolutionists are more coy, describing the supposed common ancestor as 'ape-like'. Exactly how they define the point at which an 'ape-like' creature can truly be considered an 'ape', I've never seen satisfactorily explained.
As for what constitutes the definition of 'a Christian', a good place to start would be the New Testament description of a 'believer'. What should a believer believe? What God has said! God always speaks the truth, and He has spoken through His prophets, and we have a record of that in the Bible. When one applies the 'Berean test' (Acts 17:11), it usually becomes clear fairly quickly if a denomination is espousing belief, or something different.
I have red hair and have been called a ranga, bloodnut, carrot top (never understood that because carrot tops are green), ginger megs and any other derogatory name used to describe red heads but to me its just like water off a ducks back. I even have a laugh at myself if i see a pic of an orangutan i say "look theres my cousin". I was slightly offended by a radio station promotion called "hug a ranga day" but got over it quickly and was more upset that i didnt get even one hug that day.While i abhor racism, after all we are all Gods children i think when it comes to name calling i think some people need to be more thick skinned, if you let it upset you evil wins. Forgive and pray for them. Christianity conquers by forgiveness.
In response to Shaun C from Australia: we are not apes - this is evolutionary thinking. It is an insult to every human being to suggest we are descended from apes! Psalm 139:14 (NIV) says "I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;your works are wonderful, I know that full well". So please don't fall for this common evolutionary lie.
Hmm. Calling someone a pig or an ape could be a religious insult directed at Jews or Christians - or a general insult directed at Police. Whatever the case, it attacks the humanity of the person insulted and degrades the perpetrator.
Since when does a spectators insult become an issue with evolution?.
The fact is we are apes, putting a false pretence on the whole issue by using it as anti evolution and social Darwinism is immature and ludicrous.
AFL and many other sports here in Australia are played by money hungry competitors. There were the days it was a norm for an all out brawl to place and insults to be thrown across the field.
Nowadays the athletes cry at the smallest insult and run to the mangers. Athletes are punished because their little pinky touched a players face and they scream high tackle and spend days crying about it.
Sports these days are played by fairies and money hungry bludgers, they will use anything to create a drama. Sports died a long time ago when corporations bought into it and now the players, at first, were restricted on their playing habits to not "defamate the sponsors reputation". Through the years the athletes are conditioned and the resultant factor is wimpy sooks crying up a storm when things don't go their way.
Simple as that
This has nothing to do with evolution, but drama queens playing sport.
What really scares me is that it seems to be becoming more and more acceptable, when we have no way of knowing someone's motives, to simply assume the worst, and proceed to use whatever force against them is the maximum that is allowed.
In debating origins online for example I have noticed a worsening of this kind of often hateful paranoia -- in years past more people seemed able to have a polite disagreement, but things seem to be getting more and more vicious (and this has only been encouraged by the popular leaders of evolution, usually). Now it's to the point that most who disagree with me automatically assume I'm a liar, even calling me evil and all the other things we've all heard that they chant. Even though I'm a Christian, commanded by God not to lie, etc. It's almost baffling to behold, and worrisome (but which of us by worrying... etc.).
With this instance, the only reasonable reaction at least for an online post is uncertainty whether it was racist. If she is being honest that she didn't realize it could be seen as racist, then it was not a racist remark regardless of how it might seem. Yet we have no way to be certain she's being honest, so we just don't know. But to so many this doesn't seem to matter -- the attitude seems to be that if it's possible to construe something as racist, it is okay to hate whoever said it, regardless of intent.
We've seen that now to believe what God told us is "child abuse", and suggestions that we are insane or less evolved (and insulting US as less evolved seems to be okay). Ironically I wonder if soon the very same people that are so eager to cry racism may escalate to violence, much like some racists of the past -- toward us. I pray I'm wrong, though.
Tremendously, insightful article. You've nailed it well, pointing out "the elephant in the room" of evolution.
If evolution is true then racism is sensible and all the horrors done to the aborigines were of little consequence. This article stirred me deeply and it wasn't the name calling by the girl that did it.
I recently "discovered" CMI and never loved a human organization so much. I wound up wondering how so many creationist heavyweights were Australian. Was there a powerhouse Christian school that happen to be founded there. Now I suspect that it's the presence of the aboriginal people and their apparent "humanness" that contradicted the LIE of evolution so eloquently.
This article and others like them need wider exposure. Your central point summed it up nicely though:
"When the media reports that ‘ape’ or ‘monkey’ taunts are racist, they’re accepting a deep-seated evolutionary worldview that some people groups are less evolved than others—specifically, blacks are less evolved than whites."
Thanks Robert. In my own case, I had a most secular upbringing, e.g. was sent to a government school, most definitely not a 'powerhouse Christian school'! With no churchgoing background, and taught that evolution is true, it's surely no surprise that by the time I got to uni, I was a self-declaring atheist, absolutely disdainful of anyone who professed belief in any kind of spirituality. But then I went to Indonesia ... A long story, but here's the punchline/soundbite that I often mention in my presentations to church congregations:
"I went to the world's most populous Muslim country as an Aussie atheist, and came back as a Christian. What does that say about Islam?!!!"
In hindsight, I definitely see an element of 1 Timothy 1:20 in my conversion. I can't help but think the current rise of Islam in the (formerly Christian) west might actually work upon people in the same way it did upon me, when people have to experience the earthly consequences of Islam close-up. I.e. my hope and prayer is that, when confronted with evil, people having at least a seed of righteousness will want to turn to the one true God.
Just to point out that Andrew Bolt doesn't get to moderate his own blog (his employer's lawyers won't let him), and he's often expressed his disappointment in the lack of moderators available to go through all the comments submitted. Numerous creationists (including me) have had their comments published at various times (but I've also had many go unpublished), so lack of publication is more likely due to a lack of moderators and what appears to me to be a tendency in many cases to ignore comments submitted more than a few hours after each article is published.
Evolution has become such a sacred holy belief that the media will not dare criticize it or bring it into disrepute, which really points to western society’s general discomfort, fear and abhorrence of the possible reality that “If evolution is not true then we will have a Creator to answer to/ourselves to answer for”.
So even though the media will have a go at exposing almost everything else, it remains silent and protective of possibly the greatest and most harmful mass delusion ever perpetrated in all of known history.
Excellent article pointing out the subtle evo-racist teachings in schools, books, museums, etc., and, when some overt outworking of those teachings hits the news, how careful the media is to censor any reference to evolutionism.
I looked at some of the comments from members of the public that were posted on the website of a popular British newspaper and I was shocked at what was being said about this girl. You would think she had committed the crime of the century. No doubt some, if not all, of these critics support the teaching of evolution in our schools - the same teaching that tells our children they evolved from apes.
I'm sorry, but having read, and now re-read this content twice, i am still battling to understand the specific point or set of points which you are attempting to make. Are you suggesting that the concept and / or theory of evolution is incorrect, or are you suggesting something else? This seems to be a considerable articulation of one or more ideas which are not entirely clear at the outset. Please clarify.
Hi James, and thanks for taking the time to comment. You make a fair point, actually, and one which in fact came to my mind independently after this article was published and before your comment arrived, as I realized that the article only near the end refers to the 'falsehood of evolution'. We at CMI can sometimes tend to forget that not all readers of any particular article of the 8000+ on our website are familiar with the 'big picture' of what in total we present: a definitive rebuttal of evolutionary theory, while pointing to the truth of God's Word, the Bible. For readers wanting a short article that gives an overview and entry point for further exploration of creation.com, see Created or Evolved?
When hearing about the ape comment directed at Adam Goodes, my first thought was "Well that is the legacy of Darwinism for you".
I wish well for the poor lass though. I have made silly comments and done silly things through my life and even if they were looong ago, I still dislike the fact that I said 'this' or 'that' with little thought for consequences.
Thumbs up to Mr Goodes. A champion for asking people to have compassion toward the girl and to cut her some slack. She'll learn her lesson and who knows, may become an ambassador with Adam against the social disease and sin of racial sectarism.
We are all one in Christ :-)
Typical. Evolutionists want the "good" part of the evolutionary lie -- i.e., the ability to fool themselves and others that there is no God. But they don't want the consequences that inevitably come from their teaching it to children -- racism, hopelessness, lawlessness, etc.
Sorry, folks, but you reap what you sow. If you plant a lie, you will get what that lie produces.
Most of the above comments agree that evolution is to be blamed. Of course, when your philosophy teaches your origins is from an ape, or that you share an ancestor with apes (which is self contradicting - this ancestor could at most have been as 'un-evolved' as the 'least developed' present ape - otherwise devolution) you might insult others in these terms, because you regard it offensive to being called an ape. If not, being called an ape would be a compliment. Which is actually offensive to our Creator God.
But the other side of the elephant in the room is the liberal philosophy of lack of absolutes and chameleon-like principles. What is good for the geese is not good for the gander.
What makes a grown man act like a spoiled brat? Mr Goodes has stated since the incident “... it’s not the first time ... as a ‘monkey’ or an ‘ape’, it was shattering.” So he ought to have been better prepared for similar type insults, bat alas, find it shattering. He ought to have realized that these insults can only be considered racist if he endorses such a belief himself.
However, even if it was a racist slur, he should have acted more mature by setting an example on how to combat racism. Instead he ran off to a corner and indulged in self pity—publicly.
Only in a liberal world can adversary turn people dysfunctional. They promote combating adversary, but instead, they place blame on purported lack of collective compunction by others, thus transport the solution onto guilt of others. A position based on pitiless indifference of the circumstances. A position diametrically opposed to the message of the Bible.
CMI is noted for its approach against insulting attacks against its principles. An example Mr Goodes and other liberals should follow.
To tell it like it is as David has done takes real courage. This is a well thought out and very well written article, well done Dr Catchpoole, you have always, since I first heard you speak been one of my heroes. May God continue to bless & prosper your ministry and the ministry of CMI overall.
Wow. What can I/we say? Luke 17:10 comes to mind. Thank you so much for your encouragement and prayers.
I commented on this issue on my facebook page that while they keep God out of the equation we will continue to see more of this, How can they re-educate this girl while teaching evolution and that we have evolved over millions of years from some apelike creature?
Would there have been such a media reaction if the spectator had called him a drongo, donkey, galah, silly coot? Or suppose the offensive animal name had been called out to one of the non-indigenous players - would that have made the news?
Evolutionary suppositions have a lot to answer for in our politically correct but pagan culture.
The evolutionary idea in the "ape" taunt can be summed up in the quote by Alexandre Dumas, père, addressed to a man who taunted him:
“My father was a Creole, his father a Negro, and his father a monkey; you see, Sir, my family starts where yours ends.”
Like the commentator Mark, I tried to put a comment on Andrew Bolt's blog site and it was censored. Nice to know I am not the only one! Living in politically correct Cairns the coming Reconciliation next week is a moot point as the real underlying issues are never mentioned. There is simply no discussion of the historic truth of racism in our country and the fact that Bible believing Christians stood against it 200 years ago and today.
I reviewed the so called science textbooks my children were subjected to and here are some quotes;
Longman SCI 4; page 241 chapter 8 Evolution
“Observations of embryonic development also provide evidence of evolution. The early stages of all vertebrate embryos are similar. (fig. 8.3.11) The early human embryo resembles a fish with gill slits, tail and ‘fish like’ heart and kidney. The later human embryo has a ‘reptile-like’ heart and kidney. Later again, the 7 month embryo is covered with hair and has the body proportions of a baby ape. These developmental stages are thought to reflect evolutionary history, and indicate common ancestry.”
I am nearly popping blood vessels typing this unholy nonsense. This is what passes for science today! There are pages of this, at least a quarter of the textbook.
page 246 ;....... “there are those who strongly disagree with a theory that has humans evolving from apes”
page 250 .... chart, “a proposed evolutionary tree for primates” (fig. 8.4.9) human beings a dressed man on one of the interlinked branches with lemurs, monkeys (Old and New World) gorillas and apes.
page 251 “a number of discernable changes in the evolution of Homo sapiens from an ape like ancestor. Anatomically, the various forms have walked more uprightly than their ancestors. They have developed smaller teeth,...”
Had this incident been linked to Christianity, it would have been driven in the ground and an outcry would have erupted. However, since it's evolution-inspired and people know it, it's just going to be silently placed to the side and forgotten.
Evolutionists forget their own history, and I fear that means they are doomed to repeat it at some point.
Maybe it is about time that someone mentioned that, in OZ Land, to call anyone ..."A big fat pig" or "A dumb OX" or "A stupid COW", to mention just a few of the more politer phrases, that although these may be very rude...they are in NO-WAY racist. Yes they are rude slurs...but they are NOT racist.
Our earlier article It's just not cricket! made that point with its subtitle: 'Monkey' jibe considered racist; 'donkey' apparently not
In my view this article entirely misses the mark. Racist taunts are about *intent* to denigrate a group of a different race, not the actual words used. The word 'ape' is largely irrelevant. Racism has always existed, and I doubt evolutionary theory has any relevance to racism today (although it did for a time in the early part of last century).
Thanks Bruce, but I would say it's your comment that 'entirely misses the mark'. On what basis do I say this? My own [racist] upbringing for a start. And I'm sure I'm not unique in experiencing such, in post-war Australia. Someday I intend to write about it, but feel I have to hold off for the moment while I wait for the relevant family members concerned to either come to repentance, or die off. In the meantime, my challenge to you is to read One Human Family (see box) in its entirety, and see if you then still hold to your current view.
Thank you David. This is a well-needed cultural commentary and strikes at the very heart of the racist problem, not just here in Australia but globally.
It is such a tragedy that the powers-that-be not only continue to actively promote the teaching of evolution in our children's schools, but also quash critical appraisal of their chaotic dogma. Gone are the days of free academic endeavour; the new religious priesthood, misotheist scientific academia, want to be the sole means of truth in the world, and that those who defy their supposedly unassailable doctrine of human origins get their mark of "unscientific anathema."
This should be a reminder to Christians everywhere that ours is the task to bring the fight against these mind-numbing forces by challenging the status quo. Evolution is not a side issue. From its first inception in the 1850s right until today, evolutionary dogma is destroying society and turning the world against God and his Christ. I thank God that he opened my eyes to the foolishness of evolution and instead enlightened me to the majestic marvel that is his special creation in which we dwell, and by an act of his immeasurable grace enabled me to partake of his new creation (Eph 4:24).
Fantastic article. I attempted to put a smaller version on Andrew Bolt's blog but it did not see the light of day.Quite probably because I referred to the racist implications of Darwin's evolutionary hypothesis. I was disappointed in the moderator or whoever culls the articles. Anyway I could not have done a better job than David. God bless.
Thanks Mark. I suppose one should not be surprised at your unsuccessful endeavour to point out the truth on Andrew Bolt's blog. He is as yet unwilling to engage in logical thought on the issue, as we've pointed out in this article: What part of Genesis should we believe? All of it!
It should now be apparent to the whole world there’s a contradiction. If the evolutionists are right about their theory, then calling someone an ape should be considered a compliment, not a derogative statement. They can't have it both ways. If they are wrong, which they are, then calling someone an ape can simply be viewed as a derogative but not racial slur, such as calling someone a buffoon or rodent. They are simply signs of bad or rude behaviour, not necessarily of a racist. So, all the fuss in the media is missing the real point; one could say the elephant in the room. Is that a racist comment too? Of course not.
Nice article. But not everyone in the blogosphere is afraid to criticise evolution.
I was able to publish an article referring to the Adam Goodes incident on the "ON LINE Opinion: Australia's e-journal of social and political debate" website that was openly critical of evolution. OLO is a very good website for being open-minded to all views and critiques.
This article was also printed on the "Footy Almanac" website on Monday.
Blessings to you and all at CMI,