Talk:Evolution is racist (Talk.Origins)
Re: "Young earth creationists teach that all humans belong to the same kind, sharing a common ancestor made distinct from all animals by God, and does not have the grounds for racism listed here."
But evolution not only teaches but demonstrates that all humans belong to the same species and have a common ancestor, and evolved separately from other animals following their speciation. Therefore either evolution does not have the grounds for racism listed, or those factors do not prevent racism from arising within those who hold that philosophy. Given the amount of racism demonstrated by many members of the Christian/Jewish community, based on claims of descendancy from different sons of either Adam of Noah or of being the Chosen People, the latter is the most credible.
Incidentally, even if Darwinism does suggest that eventually some human (sub)races will successfully outcompete the others, it doesn't not specify which of the existing (sub)races will be the successful ones, and so any claim that particular races are superior or inferior cannot be based on Darwinism. The same cannot be said for Christianity.
- <<...evolution not only teaches but demonstrates that all humans belong to the same species and have a common ancestor...>>
- Evolution does teach that all humans have a common ancestor, but where does it teach that all humans belong to the same species? In fact evolution proposes other species of humans, albeit ones now extinct. The Bible does not. And as evolution proposes a smooth transition between intra-species changes and inter-species changes, it effectively proposes differences between humans almost large enough to qualify for separate species. To put it another way, as "races" are different groups within species, it proposes the likelihood of separate races. The thing (apart from the Bible) that rules out extant separate species (and even separate races) is biology, not evolution. Philip J. Rayment 01:54, 26 Nov 2004 (GMT)
Via the biological species concept, which is a major facet in evolutionary biology and necessary for any discussion of speciation.
The differences between humans are nowhere near large enough to qualify for separate species - all human groups are interfertile with each other, whereas the same cannot be said for many other species such as dogs, gulls and californian salamanders which are not only closer to speciating but also have more morphological variation. Genetically there is less variation among humans than among many species with much smaller populations (chimpanzees for example). If evolution did effectively propose differences as large as you claim, it would instantly be falsified and replaced by something else; but it doesn't so that isn't necessary. Note that it doesn't rule it out either, though.It does propose that if humans don't go extinct and if the population is divided somehow (e.g. by mating time/geography/religious taboo/planetary conquest) then humans would eventually qualify for separate species, butit doesn't propose that now.
Finally, you're wrong about the Bible not mentioning different extinct humans - 'There were giants on the earth in those days' - though there's no way to tell whether they were a different species or not.
Roy 20:09, 1 Dec 2004 (GMT)
- The "biological species concept" may be incorporated into evolutionary biology, but is not dependent on it. Differences between extant humans is not large enough to qualify for separate species, but evolution proposes separate species in the past, including homo erectus as an example. Evolution therefore proposes that humans in the past have varied enough to make separate species, and I know of nothing today that evolution proposes to say that it cannot happen. The evidence, as you say, is that humans don't vary by that much, but that hasn't managed to falsify evolution, which is so flexible that it can accomodate almost anything. And evolution (or at least evolutionists) have proposed differences between humans today larger than actually exist; Darwin considered the Australian aborigines to be the missing link, there have been various claims made about negros (sorry, American Africans!) being inferior to caucasions, etc. It is biology, not evolution, that have shown these to be wrong. But that hasn't falsified evolution either! As for the Bible and extinct humans, as you said, it doesn't say that they were a different species, but rather, it does say that all humans are descended from Adam and Eve. Philip J. Rayment 22:39, 1 Dec 2004 (GMT)
- What 'evolutionists' say is not the same as what evolution predicts. You seem to understand this, so why did you write the above? Oh, and please remember that evolutionary theory has been updated since Darwin's day. Roy 14:26, 16 Mar 2005 (GMT)
5. Racism historically has been more closely associated with creationism.
This argument contradicts (4), which states "creationism is not inherently racist". Either it is or it isn't. The author should decide which argument he is trying to make.
Saying that "Racism historically has been more closely associated with creationism." does not contradict 4. Surely it is possible to be more closely associated with racism than something else and yet not be inherently racist?
"It is a fact that not all races (as is commonly defined) are equal. Because they are inequal, some must be superior to others"..
You appear to be using a racist argument here. Perhaps you should throw this all away and start again?
I would suggest an empirical way of settling this question of whether evolution promotes racism.
Is there any evidence that the US for example has become more racist since evolution began to be taught more widely (some 30-40 years ago, I understand)?
What about other countries? Is there any evidence that South Africa has become more racist since the fall of Apartheit ended the bann on teaching evolution?
Is there any evidence that graduates of biology departments where evolution is taught have become more racist during their student careers, as compared with graduates of, say, Bible colleges or theology departments where evolution is not taught?
I seem to remember a hubbub a few years ago about a university that prohibited inter-racial dating among its students. Was this an evolutionist university or an anti-evolutionist university?
I know this is only anecdotal, but the most racist comments I personally have seen recently have been fundamental Christian sites talking about Moslems. I wonder if this can be generalized. --Drlindberg 18:26, 10 July 2006 (CDT)
- In theory, some empirical study of the situation would be good. However, it is beyond my means to do it, and I daresay the same applies for others here.
- But a number of different factors would need to be taken into account, such as the situation with Hitler. Prior to the horrors of the death camps being revealed, for example, many American academics supported the same sorts of ideas that Hitler did, and it would appear that this was due to the implications of evolution. But by the time evolution came to be widely taught in the U.S., public revulsion with Hitler's methods froze out this aspect of evolutionary influence. So simply seeing whether or not racism increased after evolution started being widely taught may not give an accurate picture.
- As for South Africa, see the comments on that in the article.
- Another source of information is expert opinion, and evolutionist Stephen J. Gould said, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
- Beyond those comments, I'm probably not really familiar enough with the situation in America to comment further.
- Philip J. Rayment 00:03, 4 January 2007 (EST)
I just found this site, which I think some people might consider relevant to this discussion: http://lovingday.org/map.htm It shows the states where interracial relations were criminalized, with the dates. I don't see any relation here with acceptance of evolution. In fact, it appears to me that the states where anti-evolution feelings were strongest were the last to end such laws, and then only because they were forced to by the Supreme Court. Am I wrong?--Drlindberg 15:34, 23 December 2006 (EST)
Point 3 and 7 now need refutes. If no one else does one, I'll attempt to make one. I am wondering if we should even bother with 7 though, or if we should just not quote it since it's not relevant anyway. Shinydarkrai94 00:51, 5 September 2010 (PDT)