They’re teaching racism to our kids
Textbook used in government schools portrays ‘blacks’ as less evolved
Published: 7 March 2008 (GMT+10)
From Whalley, et al., ref. 2.
Artistic licence masquerading as scientific evidence. Even Homo habilis is included and looks authentic but it is now regarded as an invalid taxon that never existed.
A school textbook used in Australia includes one of the classic icons of evolution that NewScientist recently admitted is a racist hangover from the Victorian era.1
Although this example is specific to Australia, check the textbooks used in your country because the problem is a global one.
The textbook, called Science Focus 4,2 was written for the science syllabus, stages 4 and 5 in New South Wales and is also used in Queensland schools. The unit on evolution includes a chapter on human evolution as well as a supplementary section dealing with supposed evolutionary history of indigenous Australians.3
The colourful image, figure 7.4.7, shows the familiar series of naked primates changing from stooped apes into upright humans with the caption ‘Human form during the stages of evolution’.
One of the subtleties, recently pointed out to me, is the way the skin colour of the images changes from dark to light as evolution progresses. In other words, dark skin means less evolved and fair skin means more evolved.4 That means Africans and Aboriginals are at the bottom while Europeans are at the top. I hadn’t realized before how blatantly racist that image is.
‘Despite the lack of evidence, the Darwinian view of human origins was soon enshrined in drawings that showed a knuckle-walking ape evolving through a series of intermediate forms into an upright human being.’6
Note the terms ‘enshrined’ and ‘lack of evidence’.
Wells noted that before Darwin’s claim could properly qualify as science rather than philosophy, it required evidence. He discusses fossil discoveries such as Neanderthal man, the Piltdown fraud and skull 1470. Wells concludes that, although widely promoted, the scientific evidence does not support the idea of human evolution and questions whether paleoanthropology should be called science or myth.
Unfortunately, the young unsuspecting students studying their textbooks are not told of any problems with evolution. Unless students have access to independent information from sources critical of evolution they would never know that there is a single question about the concept. That is not education. Our children think they are learning science when they are actually being brainwashed by an atheistic, materialistic philosophy.
Recently NewScientist reported research into racism by psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt of Stanford University in California7 and the ‘ultimate icon’ of human evolution came in for specific criticism:
‘Biology textbooks would do well to replace the classic Victorian depiction of human evolution as a progression from dark skinned, broad-nosed australopithecines to a European-looking Homo sapiens with one that makes it clear that dark skinned, broad-nosed Homo sapiens are no less highly evolved.’1
Yet all the time we have been led to believe that these images are scientific.
NewScientist noted 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.’1
The problem is that evolution is inherently racist (see Evolutionary racism). And the fact is that evolution, and specifically human evolution, is not supported by the scientific evidence (See The non-transitions in human evolution on evolutionists terms). In other words, the images presented in the school textbooks are fanciful, out-of-date propaganda masquerading as science. They are deceptive, bigoted, racist, partisan, and undemocratic. It’s time that educators were held to account and required to mention the problems with evolution as well as alternatives.
- Editorial, Racism still runs deep: Even the most well-meaning liberal can harbour hidden prejudice, NewScientist 197(2643):5, 16 February 2008. 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, pp. 222–261, 2005. 40 of the 300 pages were devoted to evolution. Return to text.
- See The dating game which describes the fiasco surrounding the dating of Mungo Man and Mungo Woman. The whole evolutionary scenario is based on the dating results, which are hotly disputed. Return to text.
- See: Two-tone twins, Creation 29(2):28–29, 2007 which demonstrates that skin colour has nothing to do with evolution. Return to text.
- Wells, J., Icons of Evolution—Science or Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, DC, 2000. Return to text.
- Wells, ref. 4, p. 209. Return to text.
- Holmes, B., Racial stereotyping persists in ‘non-racists’, NewScientist 197(2643):10, 16 February 2008. Return to text.