Evolution is inherently racist
Photo www.smh.com.au
by Tas Walker
Darwin considered the Australian Aborigines as primitive and not much evolved from
the ‘anthropoid apes’. He prophesied that the ‘wilder races’,
as he called them, would become extinct because survival of the fittest meant they
would be superseded by the evolutionarily-advanced ‘civilized’ races.1 By advanced he was referring
to his own European Caucasoid ‘race’, of course.
Because of evolutionary teaching, the idea that people with dark skin are primitive
soaks deep into everyone’s unconscious today.2
The idea makes Europeans feel
superior and indigenous people inferior. It affects attitudes, behaviour
and government policy—adversely.
Evolutionary beliefs are constantly being reinforced by
racist stereotypes published in news reports, on television and in our
kids textbooks.
Look at the subliminal imagery that appeared once again with news reports about
Homo floresiensis.3
Nicknamed the Hobbit, its bones were discovered in Indonesia in 2003, and it has
been claimed to be a sub-human species.
You may not remember the big names but the images will stay with you for a lifetime.
They will convince you of evolution without your mind even getting into gear.
Graphic images of this so-called pre-human hominid have been widely published on
the web (just Google images of ‘The Hobbit’ and you will find plenty).
Notice that these images all portray the Hobbit as … naked, primitive and
black. Of course it’s black—it’s a pre-human.
How many readers would realize that the drawing is fiction, that the only evidence
that they found was some bones? Where is the fossil evidence to support the artist’s
depiction of the Hobbit’s hair length, skin colour or clothing?
So why didn’t the evolutionary anthropologists portray their primitive pre-human
evolutionarily creature as fair-skinned, blonde and European? Because a blonde
creature would not fit the stereotype.
Photo by Gary Roberts, <www.worldwidefeatures.com>.
Photo by Gary Roberts, <www.worldwidefeatures.com>.
Evolutionary propaganda is subtle and powerful. You may not remember the big names
that they give to the bones, but the
images will stay with you for a lifetime. They will convince you of evolution
without your mind even getting into gear. You’ll accept it and not realize
that the scientific evidence is lacking. (See, for example:
Anthropology and Apemen Questions and Answers.)
Evolutionary images affect the way you think of other people, even if you find the
idea of racism abhorrent. They subconsciously influence you to
associate dark-skinned people with animals.
That is why folk are stunned by real-life pictures of real-life people like
the two-tone twins, born in the UK in April 2005. These two beautiful girls
are twins, but one is ‘white’ and the other ‘black’. Personally,
I think ‘white’ and ‘black’ are misleading terms and should
be scrapped. I prefer to use ‘dark’ and ‘fair’.
This simple, factual image blasts the evolutionary stereotype. No longer can we
connect skin colour with ‘primitive’ or ‘advanced’. It’s
simply a matter of genetics—not evolution.
Both girls are fully human—both are made in the image of God.
It’s about time evolution was recognized for what it is—a degrading,
racist, philosophy that is not supported by the scientific evidence, but by clever
artwork. Don’t let them subconsciously turn you into a racist with their subtle
evolutionary icons.
Related articles
Related resources
References
- Darwin, C., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation
to Sex, 2nd ed., John Murray, London, p. 188, 1887. Return to
text.
- NewScientist editorial (Racism still runs
deep: Even the most well-meaning liberal can harbour hidden prejudice, NewScientist
197(2643):5, 16 February 2008) reported that portraying the early stages
of evolution with primitive dark-skinned African features causes Americans to ‘unconsciously
dehumanise their black fellow citizens by subtly associating them with apes’.
Return to text.
- Smith, D.,
Dwarf cretins or new human species: two academic tribes go to war, Sydney Morning
Herald, 5 March 2008. Return to text.
Published: 9 April 2008(GMT+10)
|