Evolution is inherently racist
Published: 11 April 2008 (GMT+10)
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that the ‘wilder races’, as he called them, would become extinct because survival of the fittest meant they would be superseded by the evolutionarily-advanced ‘civilized’ races.1 By advanced he was referring to his own European Caucasoid ‘race’, of course.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
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.
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.
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.
- 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.