They don't want to believe in a Creator
My disbelief of a "creator" has nothing to do with "not wanting" to believe it and everything with having zero reasons to believe it.
Give me good reasons and I will believe it.
How could one possibly argue that everyone is equally “evolved” if there are different races of people on the planet that have evolved at different rates?
That is non-sensical. There is no such thing as "more" or "less" evolved in biology.
Evolution is not a ladder.
The concept of human evolution provided people with a (supposedly) scientific basis for believing they are superior to others, which is the entire basis for racism.
You mean, the strawman concept of human evolution.
Which ape? Chimps, bonobo's, oerang oetangs, gorilla's or humans? Because all are apes.
Look at it. Observe it. Are you going to somehow try to convince me that we as human beings are not more intelligent, more advanced, more capable, than they?
We are a different species of ape, yes. What's your point?
We are not "more evolved". We just evolved differently.
A chimp is stronger, we are smarter.
A chimp's short term memory is exponentially better then ours, we are far better problem solvers.
We are not "more evolved". We simply evolved differently.
That you insist on considering humans as "superior" is just your human narcisism at play.
We are only "superior" in so far as we consider our exclusively human traits as being "superior" to the exlusive chimp traits.
If we are going to use short term memory as a standard, then chimps are superior.
If we are going to use strength as a standard, then chimps are superior.
But naturally, you are using unique human traits as standards so you conclude humans as being superior.
But you need to realize this is just a matter of perspective. Entirely subjective. And somewhat narcistic.
I'm guilty of the same type of thing, mind you. Instinctively, I would also place our species "above" all others.
But I understand it's really just a matter of subjective perspective. We only conclude this because we put that extra importance on our unique human traits. Which is to be expected, as those are the traits that make us human. Objectively seeing, it's just narcistic though.
Let's consider some things about evolution scientifically. Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species. [ “... the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma.” Taylor, p. 225. ] Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing) “individuals.”
False. Evolution is a population mechanic. Populations evolve. Mutations / variation is indeed introduced by individuals, but the ultimate pressure is on the entire population.
How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited?
By reproducing before dieing.
Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism?
Not if that individual reproduces first.
If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have eliminated unselfish behavior. Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution.
It does not.
It, at best, only contradicts your misunderstandings.
But let's consider another established fact, this time looking at something that is uniquely human: Language. No known evidence shows that language exists or evolves in nonhumans, but all known human groups have language.
This is false. Plenty of species, most actually, communicate one way or the other. Just because they do it in another way then humans doesn't mean they don't engage in it.
Furthermore, only humans have different modes of language: speaking/hearing, writing/reading, signing, touch (as with Braille), and tapping (as with Morse code or tapcodes used by prisoners). When one mode is prevented, as with the loss of hearing, others can be used. If language evolved, the earliest languages should be the simplest. But language studies show that the more ancient the language (for example: Latin, 200 B.C.; Greek, 800 B.C.; Linear B, 1200 B.C.; and Vedic Sanskrit, 1500 B.C.), the more complex it is with respect to syntax, case, gender, mood, voice, tense, verb forms, and inflection.
You are again making the narcistic mistake of focussing on human-only traits while ignoring all species have traits unique to them.
The best evidence shows that languages devolve; that is, they become simpler instead of more complex. Most linguists reject the idea that simple languages evolve into complex languages [ David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83–89. ]. If humans evolved, then so did language. All available evidence indicates that language did not evolve, so why believe humans did evolve?
This is ridiculously false.
There were no spanish, french, portugese or italians speakers 2000 years ago. Their ancestors back then all spoke latin.
Go grab a text from London written 500 years ago and read it. Does it sound and look like modern english? No, it doesn't.
Languages definitely evolve. Some grow more complex, some simplify and some simply change while remaining their level of complexity.
If people were to believe in the Bible and accept it, there wouldn't be the racial divisions that they are today.
Is this a joke?