The fallacy of racism
The evolutionary view that life can evolve to ‘higher’ levels provides
fuel for racist attitudes. The Bible, on the other hand, clearly shows the fallacy
of racism.
by Paula Weston
The increasing spread of evolutionist doctrine has much to answer for in relation
to the way people often treat each other.
Sadly, people rarely recognize that the prejudices which have slowly become ingrained
in their psyche have often been a result—directly or indirectly—of evolutionary
thinking.
One of the prevalent evidences of man’s inhumanity to man is racism. Put simply,
racism is prejudice against people of other ‘races’1 for that reason alone. Stereotypical rules are applied
to demean individuals based on their cultural background, skin colour, appearance,
or accent.
More often than not, these rules allow an unfounded assumption of superiority over
that individual, which in turn justifies any feelings of disdain or indifference
towards them. In truth, this attitude is usually based on nothing more than fear,
ignorance, and misunderstanding. The manifestations of racism can be blatant, such
as in hatred from the Ku Klux Klan or the oppressiveness of apartheid; it can also
be as simple as telling degrading anecdotes or possessing a cold attitude of indifference.
As a result of evolutionary thinking, many in Western society are unable to experience
heartfelt sympathy for starving children in poverty-stricken Third World countries.
For reasons they could never justify, they believe ‘life’ somehow means
less to these strangers with different skin colour and features. Incredibly, I have
heard this type of comment from ‘educated’ people!
This misinformed attitude is understandable if people accept the idea of ‘survival
of the fittest’, that the rules of the animal kingdom must apply to humans
‘because we’ve all evolved from animals’!
Neither racism—nor the idea of evolution—started with Darwin. Both are
manifestations of basing one’s thinking on a non-biblical foundation. However,
Darwin’s writings greatly fuelled racism, providing a ‘scientific’
justification for it. His book’s subtitle referred to the ‘preservation
of favoured races’.
The Bible, of course, teaches in the first chapter of Genesis that God created the
heavens and the earth, and all life upon it. There is no evidence to show that man’s
existence came about in any other way. The theory of evolution is based on assumption
and misinformation.
If we believe the Bible, all of the Bible, then it is clear that all
people were created by God. ‘And the Lord God formed man
of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and
man became a living soul’ (Genesis 2:7).
Acts 17:26 says: ‘And [God] hath made of one blood
[i.e. from one original ancestor, Adam and his wife, Eve] all
nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth …’.
That means we’re all related!
The origin of the earth’s different ‘races’ (the Bible doesn’t
use this term, but calls them tribes and nations) has long caused unnecessary confusion
among both Christians and non-Christians. The truth is surprisingly simple.
Most evolutionists today wouldn’t dispute the biblical creationist understanding
that all ‘races’ came from the same original population (they would
not agree that it was only two individuals), although that wasn’t always the
case. Evolutionists teach that these groups ‘evolved’ independently
from each other, separated for many tens of thousands of years. Evolutionists feel
this length of time is necessary to explain the development of physical differences
between the ‘races’.
|
Madonna and evolutionary racism
So-called rock ‘star’ Madonna was quoted as saying she would be unlikely
to choose a black partner again. Claiming to have been mistreated when she dated
black men, she allegedly said: ‘Maybe a lot of it has to do with the fact
that they haven’t had the same chances as we white people have had to be educated
or exposed to things that make you more evolved.’5
Sadly, millions of young people follow all the antics and comments of Madonna, whose
activities scarcely merit a claim of cultural superiority. Madonna’s statement
highlights the all-too-common belief that some ‘races’ are less ‘evolved’
than others. Although Madonna may have only been referring to social evolution,
in many people’s minds the concepts of social and biological evolution are
inextricably related.
In fact, modern molecular biology confirms the biblical view that all the peoples
of the world are astonishingly close genetically. For example, it is common knowledge
in the medical profession that, when looking for someone as an organ donor for a
transplant, the person whose tissue type is most suitable for you (whether you are
black or white, for example) may very well be someone of the ‘opposite colour’.
In reality, all of us have the same brown-black pigment, melanin, in our skin, simply
making more or less of that pigment.
|
This misleading concept gives rise to the idea that some ‘races’ have
developed and become more ‘sophisticated’ faster than others, leading
to the ultimate conclusion (often subconsciously) that certain ‘races’
are superior to others.
The Creation Answers Book offers a clear and concise explanation
of how the different ‘races’ developed after the confounding of the
language and population dispersion at Babel (recorded in
Genesis 11:1–9). The book provides logical, scientific evidence that
mankind has descended from Noah and his family (and Adam and Eve before that). (See
the online extract How
could all human races come from Noah, his three sons and their wives?)
It explains how the dispersion, involving the breaking up of a large group into
many small groups (comprising members who spoke the same language) who only breed
within the group, ensured the resultant populations would have different mixes of
genes for various physical features.
Adam and Eve, created perfect, would have had the genetic information enabling their
offspring to have the many combinations of skin, hair, and eye colour existent in
the world today.2
Today’s population descended from Noah and his family after the Flood, so
the amount of genes available would probably have been slightly reduced from those
of Adam and Eve.
Thus, the dispersion ensured that within a short time certain fixed differences3 would become apparent in some of
the small groups, which we would call separate ‘races’.4
In Romans, we are told that all men are born equal: ‘For
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God’ (Romans 3:23),
but the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has brought the possibility of redemption
and salvation: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever [regardless of which tribe
or ‘race’ they belong to] believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16).
Among believers:
‘There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond
nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’
(Gal. 3:28).
In the light of God’s Word, there can be no justification for promoting or
condoning racism.
Related articles
References and notes
- The term ‘race’ used to mean such things as the English
race, the Irish race, etc. but since Darwin we tend to think of the word differently,
so most today think in evolutionary terms about that word. We should use ‘tribes
and nations’ or ‘ethnic groups’ because of this wrong understanding
of the word ‘race’. Return to text.
- Some features may arise from a loss of information due to mutation
since the Fall. Red hair, for instance, appears to be due to an inherited mutation
such that the brown-black fraction of the pigment melanin cannot be produced, leaving
only the reddish component. Since the other fraction affords more protection against
the sun, redheads are more susceptible to sunburn. Return to text.
- Such differences do not arise out of nowhere; the information was
already present, just that a new combination of genes can appear different. These
differences are not only trivial, (e.g. more or less of the same skin pigment) they
are only ‘fixed’ if that group only intermarries within its own group.
As individuals from different groups intermarry, genes are again allowed to combine
in ways which will lead to a greater potential for variation, and a lessening of
apparent differences between the groups. In theory, such intermarriage should be
a genetic benefit, increasing the overall information within offspring, and diluting
harmful genes which have arisen through mutations since the Fall. Return
to text.
- See
The Creation Answers Book for a fuller discussion. Return
to text.
- The Daily Telegraph, Sydney, 15 October 1996.
Return to text.
(Available in Finnish)
| Besides the many thousands of articles that are freely available on this site, our staff answer many hundreds of emails in response to it. Help us help advance the gospel.  | | |
|
