Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[shunyadragon]

So , that means we must accept literally the 'Garden of Eden' ?

What you must do? My posts reflect the range of how Christians interpret the Pentateuch. This needs more clarification. The mythical accounts of the Pentateuch deal with a lot more than the existence of the "Garden of Eden. It has been demonstrated that the authors of the Pentateuch and the New Testament, and the Church Fathers believed in a literal Pentateuch. What they wrote and believed reflected the limited cultural view of the time.

We don't force anything , Science deals with facts and evidence , Scripture deals with faith.

True, scripture deals with subjective faith, but the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch is in direct conflict with the documented objective facts of science and history.

You trying to make that necessary opposite is quite another thing to discuss.

Not clear.

This is hillarious.
Stick to geology please..

I personally stick to foundation of evolution as the facts of geology, biology, genetics and chemistry. The subject of the thread concerning the accusation of racism in evolution is related to the problem of the interpretation of the Pentateuch by fundamentalist Christians.

Parabels are literal , are you reading what you wrote?

I never suggested parables are literal, All the parables used by Jesus are older parables of Hebrew tradition and of course are not literal.

Which is literal interpretation of the Bible , and no verse in the Bible covers the whole timeline of life on Earth.
Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible?

The dinosaurs are not in the ancient tribal scripture of the Bible for obvious reasons they had no knowledge of science.

The proposed timeline is in the Pentateuch and somewhat variously interpreted as up to about 10,000 years or less.

So , your whole concept requires the reader to reject faith and accept evidence on literal interpretation.
'Forced to accept literal' is your answer in short...

There is absolutely no objective evidence for the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch.

No one is being forced to do anything. The literal interpretation of scripture, and the accusation of racism in evolution are based on a warped literal interpretation of the Bible without the knowledge of contemporary science and history.

 

[Dimi95]

What you must do? My posts reflect the range of how Christians interpret the Pentateuch.

You should be specific , since that is Young - Creationist idea.

Christianity contains a wide range of different people with different understanding about existence.

This needs more clarification. The mythical accounts of the Pentateuch deal with a lot more than the existence of the "Garden of Eden. It has been demonstrated that the authors of the Pentateuch and the New Testament, and the Church Fathers believed in a literal Pentateuch. What they wrote and believed reflected the limited cultural view of the time.

Still , it is irrelevant.
It demonstrates only the incapabilitiy to say otherwise since no other form of knowledge was available.They understood based on what society has given them..

True, scripture deals with subjective faith, but the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch is in direct conflict with the documented objective facts of science and history.

Yes , this is true

Not clear.

Do you think that only literal interpretation of the Bible is acceptable?
This is in general my question to your answer since you proposed literal interpretation.

I personally stick to foundation of evolution as the facts of geology, biology, genetics and chemistry.

As i do
Remember when we talked about Young-Earth evidence ? Well , since then , observing the evidence i accepted evolution and rejected Young-Earth Creation idea.

The subject of the thread concerning the accusation of racism in evolution is related to the problem of the interpretation of the Pentateuch by fundamentalist Christians.

Ok , now you are more clear

I never suggested parables are literal, All the parables used by Jesus are older parables of Hebrew tradition and of course are not literal.

Since you said 'fundamentalist' , this is valid.

The dinosaurs are not in the ancient tribal scripture of the Bible for obvious reasons they had no knowledge of science.

And that is my main point if you bother to read my answers.

The proposed timeline is in the Pentateuch and somewhat variously interpreted as up to about 10,000 years or less.

Yes , Young-Earth Creation idea is also unreasonable to me.

There is absolutely no objective evidence for the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch.

No one is being forced to do anything. The literal interpretation of scripture, and the accusation of racism in evolution are based on a warped literal interpretation of the Bible without the knowledge of contemporary science and history.

So the question would be ,'Do you think that the Bible necessitates the reader to interpret it as literal' ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now, now, now -- SZ -- have a good evening. Oh, and lest I not forget -- chimps did not invent nuclear weapons.

Please clarify the actual point you are pretending to make.

 

[shunyadragon]

You should be specific , since that is Young - Creationist idea.

Not necessarily. The only difference between Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism is time, not the substance of the Biblical Record of Creation and the belief in historical accuracy pf the Pentateuch,

Christianity contains a wide range of different people with different understanding about existence.

Not so wide, There are YEC, OEC, and liberal churches that believe in the anecdotal or symbolic meaning of Creation myth and much of the Pentateuch

Actually most Jews reject the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch in recent history with the growth of Reformed Judaism.

You need to define your view more specifically.

Still , it is irrelevant.
It demonstrates only the incapabilitiy to say otherwise since no other form of knowledge was available.They understood based on what society has given them..

It is very relevant, yes the Creation accounts and the other accounts in the Pentateuch are limited to what the Hebrews believed in ~600 BCE, but that is not the problem. The problem is predominant belief among many Christians that the Pentateuch is in some way a literal accurate history.

Yes , this is true

Do you think that only literal interpretation of the Bible is acceptable?

The problem is the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch is unacceptable in it's variations,

This is in general my question to your answer since you proposed literal interpretation.


As i do
Remember when we talked about Young-Earth evidence ? Well , since then , observing the evidence i accepted evolution and rejected Young-Earth Creation idea.


Ok , now you are more clear


Since you said 'fundamentalist' , this is valid.


And that is my main point if you bother to read my answers.


Yes , Young-Earth Creation idea is also unreasonable to me.



So the question would be ,'Do you think that the Bible necessitates the reader to interpret it as literal' ?

No, but YEC and OEC are both severely problematic.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

What explanation does the evolutionary doctrine give to the different human races? Does this have to do with the species of apes that populated the different regions of the earth?

In any case, in human likeness, how many different races exist among the apes that later, according to evolutionary doctrine, became the different human races?

Good evening Eli G.

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept. How many times do I hear of people saying that black people have not evolved because they follow the idea that light skin came about as an development when migration out of Africa was carried out, despite the fact that what is claimed to be our closest biological relative has light skin. This might make some people feel superior to others, to think that they are more evolved than others, but it's simply not true. I know black people who have adapted to cold temperatures, just as I know of white people who have adapted to hot weather. A number of black people have very wooly hair, which is a puzzlement to scientists who don't understand if their evolution was simply towards hot climates, why their hair should be thicker and woolier than those of lighter skin living in colder climates who have thin hair, or even balding. The explanation for the wooly hair of black people is the ridiculous notion that they evolved this to protect their head from the heat, but in actuality, most black people cut their hair very short in hot climates.

Understand that even giants in the evolutionary community like the late Stephen Jay Gould have admitted the following:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Hitler also believed in a superior race and millions of lives were lost because of it during World War 2.

Origin of Species was published in 1859, Descent of Man graced (or more properly, disgraced) bookstore shelves in 1871. Ideas have consequences, which is why no sooner had these ideas been published, atheistic, evolutionary adherents like Thomas Huxley (nicknamed Darwin’s bulldog and one of his closest friends) was spewing racist filth like the following; "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

The Bible tells us that the first humans were Adam and Eve, that they knew how to speak intelligibly as soon as they were brought in to existence. They knew how to speak, just as they knew how naturally how to breathe. They lived in a garden, not prepared by man, but by Yahweh and the temperatures and lifestyle was completely agreeable. I find it unlikely that it would have been either too hot, or too cold, but rather moderate and agreeable temperatures were evident. It mentions a river/spring in the Garden which parts into four major rivers, including the Euphrates. This has led many, including Bible scholars, to conclude that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle eastern area known today as the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley, with its remains long ago vanishing.

We are are descended from Adam and Eve. At no point in the history of mankind were we ever anything less than human. I think sometimes Yahweh must laugh when supposingly educated people defend with vigor that we evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years. It's stupidity on the highest level and it's come about by rejection of the plain truths of the Bible. If people want to believe that their ancestors were ape-like and stupid then they are welcome to. Maybe it makes some people feel better about themselves. Superior to those of the past. But whatever the reason, it's nonsense.

The three races undoubtedly developed from the three sons of Noah.

Racism in all it's forms is wrong, yet even so-called religious people have been known to be racist. Something I find very unusual because we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but rather the deeds we have done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good evening Eli G.

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept.

What does this mean? Racism is a human concept and old problem that existed long before we recognized and explained the evidence of evolution. Evolution may be twisted by some to their flawed personal bias, but racism is not a concept of the theory of evolution. You have a problem with hammers.

How many times do I hear of people saying that black people have not evolved because they follow the idea that light skin came about as an development when migration out of Africa was carried out, despite the fact that what is claimed to be our closest biological relative has light skin.

The evidence indicates that populations of human with light skin pigmentation evolved in populations of humans that had darker skin pigmentation driven by the selection of the environment.

If people use a scientific theory to advance racist views, that is not the fault of science or some inherent property of a scientific theory. No more inherent than the fact that a hammer can be used as a tool to build or a weapon to kill.

This might make some people feel superior to others, to think that they are more evolved than others,

There is no such thing as more evolved. Populations are evolved relative to the environment such that populations continue to exist with traits that are fit for the environment.

but it's simply not true. I know black people who have adapted to cold temperatures, just as I know of white people who have adapted to hot weather.

Those are physiological and developmental adaptations of individuals and are not due to changes in genes. Individuals can change within the extent of physiological and developmental parameters, but individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. That evolution is through genetic adaptations that are derived from changes in the genome and passed onto descendants under selection of the environment.

A number of black people have very wooly hair, which is a puzzlement to scientists who don't understand if their evolution was simply towards hot climates, why their hair should be thicker and woolier than those of lighter skin living in colder climates who have thin hair, or even balding. The explanation for the wooly hair of black people is the ridiculous notion that they evolved this to protect their head from the heat, but in actuality, most black people cut their hair very short in hot climates.

I have no idea. No references. Just your summation of something that may or may not have facts to bolster it.

What does cutting of hair tell us about the evolution of a trait? It doesn't make any sense.

Understand that even giants in the evolutionary community like the late Stephen Jay Gould have admitted the following:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Would be nice if folks would give sources for their quotes.

I've read the passage this quote is mined from. It is taken out of context of an entire chapter. How is doing that right?

It represents the racism that already existed and the weakness of some people to find means to justify their personal beliefs. Scientists are not immune to the formation of subjective opinions. But those subjective opinions arise from the people that come to them for many reasons and do not arise naturally from the science.

Hitler also believed in a superior race and millions of lives were lost because of it during World War 2.

Origin of Species was published in 1859, Descent of Man graced (or more properly, disgraced) bookstore shelves in 1871. Ideas have consequences, which is why no sooner had these ideas been published, atheistic, evolutionary adherents like Thomas Huxley (nicknamed Darwin’s bulldog and one of his closest friends) was spewing racist filth like the following; "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

Instead of quoting a man with 19th Century views of race that really were not much different than those held by Abraham Lincoln, can you point to people of science today that use the theory of evolution to support racism? Stuff that isn't quote-mined out of context I mean.

How about showing that racism is the natural conclusion of the science. You have a lot of emotion, but very little fact. Your emotional appeal is not making the connections required to take it from emotional to factual.

The Bible tells us that the first humans were Adam and Eve, that they knew how to speak intelligibly as soon as they were brought in to existence. They knew how to speak, just as they knew how naturally how to breathe. They lived in a garden, not prepared by man, but by Yahweh and the temperatures and lifestyle was completely agreeable. I find it unlikely that it would have been either too hot, or too cold, but rather moderate and agreeable temperatures were evident. It mentions a river/spring in the Garden which parts into four major rivers, including the Euphrates. This has led many, including Bible scholars, to conclude that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle eastern area known today as the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley, with its remains long ago vanishing.

We are are descended from Adam and Eve. At no point in the history of mankind were we ever anything less than human. I think sometimes Yahweh must laugh when supposingly educated people defend with vigor that we evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years. It's stupidity on the highest level and it's come about by rejection of the plain truths of the Bible. If people want to believe that their ancestors were ape-like and stupid then they are welcome to. Maybe it makes some people feel better about themselves. Superior to those of the past. But whatever the reason, it's nonsense.

I realize you are expressing a literal belief in the Bible, but aren't you offering that as an example of spiritual superiority over others with a wave of your hand and against knowledge that can be rationally observed and evaluated? How is that not doing what you are preaching against?

The three races undoubtedly developed from the three sons of Noah.

There is nothing to support that there was even a Noah, let alone three sons or anything you claim here stemming from your literal belief.

Racism in all it's forms is wrong,

On this I agree.

yet even so-called religious people have been known to be racist.

Again, I agree.

Something I find very unusual because we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but rather the deeds we have done.

There is nothing about having a religious believe that vaccinates a person from personal bigotry. But there is nothing in the science to support a view that recognizing evidence and logical, rational explanations of that evidence results in racism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Good evening Eli G.

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept. How many times do I hear of people saying that black people have not evolved because they follow the idea that light skin came about as an development when migration out of Africa was carried out, despite the fact that what is claimed to be our closest biological relative has light skin. This might make some people feel superior to others, to think that they are more evolved than others, but it's simply not true. I know black people who have adapted to cold temperatures, just as I know of white people who have adapted to hot weather. A number of black people have very wooly hair, which is a puzzlement to scientists who don't understand if their evolution was simply towards hot climates, why their hair should be thicker and woolier than those of lighter skin living in colder climates who have thin hair, or even balding. The explanation for the wooly hair of black people is the ridiculous notion that they evolved this to protect their head from the heat, but in actuality, most black people cut their hair very short in hot climates.

What you hear is not from the scientists in the sciences dealing with evolution. Can you cite contemporary scientists the actually advocate this in the bold.

Yes it is simply not true that any one race is superior to other races. Rce color was simply an adaptation to different climates. gain please cite contemporary scientists in the fields of evolution that supports any sort of racial superiority.

Actually in the above you presented is a racist non-scientific perspective of racial differences and superiority common in the history of Christianity.

Understand that even giants in the evolutionary community like the late Stephen Jay Gould have admitted the following:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Hitler also believed in a superior race and millions of lives were lost because of it during World War 2.

True, but the misuse of evolution is not the sciences of evolution.

Origin of Species was published in 1859, Descent of Man graced (or more properly, disgraced) bookstore shelves in 1871. Ideas have consequences, which is why no sooner had these ideas been published, atheistic, evolutionary adherents like Thomas Huxley (nicknamed Darwin’s bulldog and one of his closest friends) was spewing racist filth like the following; "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

Darwin is not the first to propose evolution, and he does not represent the views of evolution by academic scientists in the 20th and the 21st centuries.

The Bible tells us that the first humans were Adam and Eve, that they knew how to speak intelligibly as soon as they were brought in to existence. They knew how to speak, just as they knew how naturally how to breathe. They lived in a garden, not prepared by man, but by Yahweh and the temperatures and lifestyle was completely agreeable. I find it unlikely that it would have been either too hot, or too cold, but rather moderate and agreeable temperatures were evident. It mentions a river/spring in the Garden which parts into four major rivers, including the Euphrates. This has led many, including Bible scholars, to conclude that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle eastern area known today as the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley, with its remains long ago vanishing.

We are are descended from Adam and Eve. At no point in the history of mankind were we ever anything less than human. I think sometimes Yahweh must laugh when supposingly educated people defend with vigor that we evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years. It's stupidity on the highest level and it's come about by rejection of the plain truths of the Bible. If people want to believe that their ancestors were ape-like and stupid then they are welcome to. Maybe it makes some people feel better about themselves. Superior to those of the past. But whatever the reason, it's nonsense.

The three races undoubtedly developed from the three sons of Noah.

The ancient Bible without provenance of authorship, origin and time as written, like all ancient religious texts based on ancient mythology is not an adequate source to judge evolution. The Bible itself encourages racism.

Racism in all it's forms is wrong, yet even so-called religious people have been known to be racist. Something I find very unusual because we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but rather the deeds we have done.

Only true statement in this thread. Unfortunately the history of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and ISlam is dominated by tribalism, wars and racism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept

Those who would use evolution theory as a basis for their racism, at the very best are using a misrepresentation of it.
There's nothing in evolution theory that says anything whatsoever of one species or race or ethnicity of being "superior" to any other.

Origin of Species was published in 1859, Descent of Man graced (or more properly, disgraced) bookstore shelves in 1871. Ideas have consequences, which is why no sooner had these ideas been published, atheistic, evolutionary adherents like Thomas Huxley (nicknamed Darwin’s bulldog and one of his closest friends) was spewing racist filth like the following; "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

I don't know in how far this is actually true about Huxley, but I don't care either way.
It is an ignorant thing to say, regardless of its source.

All evolution theory does is explain how species change over time.
It's not a manual on how to organize society nor is it a guideline on how to treat fellow humans or other species.
Those who think otherwise are either ignorant, dishonest or misled.

And more importantly: none of it has any impact whatsoever on the accuracy of the theory.

The Bible tells us that the first humans were Adam and Eve,

Which is demonstrably wrong.

We are are descended from Adam and Eve.

No, we are not.

At no point in the history of mankind were we ever anything less than human.

False. Our distant ancestors where not humans. This is a genetic fact, wheter you like it or not.

I think sometimes Yahweh must laugh when supposingly educated people defend with vigor that we evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years.

We are still apes. Just like we are still mammals (and tetrapods, and vertebrates, and eukaryotes,....). This will never change, as in biology species do not outgrow their ancestry.
Our non-human ancestors were apes and mammals.
Our non-ape ancestors were mammals.
Our non-mammal ancestors were tetrapods.
Our non-tetrapod ancestors were vertebrates.
Our non-vertebrate ancestors were eukaryotes.

Humans are still apes, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes...
And should humans in the future further speciate into sub-species, then those sub-species would also still be humans, apes, mammals, etc.

It's stupidity on the highest level and it's come about by rejection of the plain truths of the Bible.

No. It's come about by accepting the evidence of reality. Regardless of the bible.
Also, you might want to reflect on the fact that the majority of bible believing christians have no problem at all with evolution theory.
So clearly your belief that one has to either believe evolution OR the bible, puts you in a minority. Most christians do not agree with you on that at all.

If people want to believe that their ancestors were ape-like and stupid then they are welcome to. Maybe it makes some people feel better about themselves. Superior to those of the past. But whatever the reason, it's nonsense.

Not nonsense. Genetic fact.

The three races undoubtedly developed from the three sons of Noah.

That is what the nonsense is. Genetics alone disproves this drivel.

Racism in all it's forms is wrong, yet even so-called religious people have been known to be racist.

"so-called"? I smell a no-true scotsman fallacy.

Something I find very unusual because we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but rather the deeds we have done.

Euh... no. You should read your bible. Deeds are just a footnote in your theology. The first requirement is your level of gullibility.
What matters most in christianity is what you believe, not what you do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept.

That would be a huge misunderstanding of evolution and how science works.

"Scientific racism" is a PSEUDOscience. Not science. It is no different than astrology or creationism or parapsychology.

Quite to the contrary, science has determined that distinct human races don't exist. There is, for example, NO clear boundary where "white" stops and "black" begins. There is some variation of human traits and some may be more common in some areas of the world than in other places. That is not the same thing as there being distinct groups. All of this dovetails quite neatly into evolution which would predict this.

 

[Dimi95]

You need to define your view more specifically.

Natural Science.

I reject every other possibility.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

What does this mean? Racism is a human concept and old problem that existed long before we recognized and explained the evidence of evolution. Evolution may be twisted by some to their flawed personal bias, but racism is not a concept of the theory of evolution. You have a problem with hammers.

The evidence indicates that populations of human with light skin pigmentation evolved in populations of humans that had darker skin pigmentation driven by the selection of the environment.

If people use a scientific theory to advance racist views, that is not the fault of science or some inherent property of a scientific theory. No more inherent than the fact that a hammer can be used as a tool to build or a weapon to kill.

There is no such thing as more evolved. Populations are evolved relative to the environment such that populations continue to exist with traits that are fit for the environment.

Those are physiological and developmental adaptations of individuals and are not due to changes in genes. Individuals can change within the extent of physiological and developmental parameters, but individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. That evolution is through genetic adaptations that are derived from changes in the genome and passed onto descendants under selection of the environment.

I have no idea. No references. Just your summation of something that may or may not have facts to bolster it.

What does cutting of hair tell us about the evolution of a trait? It doesn't make any sense.

Would be nice if folks would give sources for their quotes.

I've read the passage this quote is mined from. It is taken out of context of an entire chapter. How is doing that right?

It represents the racism that already existed and the weakness of some people to find means to justify their personal beliefs. Scientists are not immune to the formation of subjective opinions. But those subjective opinions arise from the people that come to them for many reasons and do not arise naturally from the science.

Instead of quoting a man with 19th Century views of race that really were not much different than those held by Abraham Lincoln, can you point to people of science today that use the theory of evolution to support racism? Stuff that isn't quote-mined out of context I mean.

How about showing that racism is the natural conclusion of the science. You have a lot of emotion, but very little fact. Your emotional appeal is not making the connections required to take it from emotional to factual.

I realize you are expressing a literal belief in the Bible, but aren't you offering that as an example of spiritual superiority over others with a wave of your hand and against knowledge that can be rationally observed and evaluated? How is that not doing what you are preaching against?

There is nothing to support that there was even a Noah, let alone three sons or anything you claim here stemming from your literal belief.

On this I agree.

Again, I agree.

There is nothing about having a religious believe that vaccinates a person from personal bigotry. But there is nothing in the science to support a view that recognizing evidence and logical, rational explanations of that evidence results in racism.

Good morning Dan From Smithville.

You said: "If people use a scientific theory to advance racist views, that is not the fault of science or some inherent property of a scientific theory." I don't know if you pay attention to social media, but racism is a very real problem in our modern day society and it's only getting worse. Some of the things I encounter on social media are truly horrible, expressed by people who espouse to believe in the theory of evolution. Yes, you could argue that science is impartial and that science is not racist in itself, however, it can be when faulty scientific reasoning is used because many people have an agenda and are motivated by hate rather than love. And faulty scientific reasoning comes about many times because people are [not] impartial. They don't want to believe in a Creator, so they gravitate to everything but sound reasoning. The only agenda of the Bible however is to bring people in to the Kingdom by equipping us with faith and teaching us what we need to do to be there.

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? 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.

Go to an ape. 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? I watched a video a few days ago where a man at some kind of animal reserve or zoo imitated the behavior of an ape, jumping up and down, pounding his chest etc through the safety glass. Yes, one might say such a display is amusing, especially with the music that was playing on this 'short' clip. But are you going to try to tell me that we as humans are somehow on the same level as those of the rest of the animal kingdom? I would venture to say that anyone who acts like an animal acts stupid. I mean, you would have to be really deluded if you were to believe otherwise. The human brain is about three times as big as the brain of what is claimed to be our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Moreover, a part of the brain called the cerebral cortex – which plays a key role in memory, attention, awareness and thought – contains twice as many cells in humans as the same region in chimpanzees. Differences and similarities between human and chimpanzee neural progenitors during cerebral cortex development.

We are on the same level as the animal kingdom in the respect that we all die and we have no preeminence above the beast (Ecclesiastes 3:19), but we have been called to a higher purpose through Yahshua our Savior who died for us, not for animal kind, but to bring us (human kind) in to the Kingdom. In my opinion, your theory which you hold to does indeed promulgate the lie that some people are more evolved than others and death is looked upon with a stone cold gaze by those who believe this theory by suggesting those who died and weren't able to reproduce weren't fit enough ("survival of the fittest").

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.” How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism? If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have eliminated unselfish behavior. Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution.

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. 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. 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?

If people were to believe in the Bible and accept it, there wouldn't be the racial divisions that they are today. We are all created in the image of Yahweh. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve. And we are children of the Most High. Such knowledge always inspires me to do everything in my power to help others who have a need. The theory of evolution is an empty ideology that will cost people their salvation. It's an ideology that opposes faith in the Bible and does not embolden us to live by the high ideals and morality set forth in the Word of Yahweh.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Good morning Dan From Smithville.

You said: "If people use a scientific theory to advance racist views,

That's actually not a good summary of what happens. BAD science is not science. Science is a very particular methodology, with given steps, and logical criteria for how data can properly be crunched, and peer review and repetition to sort out anomalies, mistakes, and fraud. "Scientific racism" is not actually science. It is a pseudo-science, no different from astrology, or creationism, or parapsychology.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

That's actually not a good summary of what happens. BAD science is not science. Science is a very particular methodology, with given steps, and logical criteria for how data can properly be crunched, and peer review and repetition to sort out anomalies, mistakes, and fraud. "Scientific racism" is not actually science. It is a pseudo-science, no different from astrology, or creationism, or parapsychology.

Good morning IndigoChild5559.

My argument is that the theory of evolution is bad science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good morning IndigoChild5559.

My argument is that the theory of evolution is bad science.

Your argument is nonsensical and it is based on strawmanning the unified field theory of biology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Go to an ape.

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?

 

[shunyadragon]

Good morning Dan From Smithville.

You said: "If people use a scientific theory to advance racist views, that is not the fault of science or some inherent property of a scientific theory." I don't know if you pay attention to social media, but racism is a very real problem in our modern day society and it's only getting worse. Some of the things I encounter on social media are truly horrible, expressed by people who espouse to believe in the theory of evolution. Yes, you could argue that science is impartial and that science is not racist in itself, however, it can be when faulty scientific reasoning is used because many people have an agenda and are motivated by hate rather than love. And faulty scientific reasoning comes about many times because people are [not] impartial. They don't want to believe in a Creator, so they gravitate to everything but sound reasoning. The only agenda of the Bible however is to bring people in to the Kingdom by equipping us with faith and teaching us what we need to do to be there.

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? 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.

Your post is interesting, but does contain several misunderstanding and misinformation of the sciences of evolution. It is difficult to address all the problems, because you mis religious beliefs with your views on evolution. Like all science the sciences of evolution must remain separate and detached from any one religious belief. Your rejection of evolution is based on misleading misinformation not supported by science.

@Dan From Smithville is correct you cannot blame a scientific theory for the problems of racism. Science is simply an objective observer of the nature of humanity and should not be used to justify racism.

The sciences of evolution are not at fault for anything concerning human behavior. Evolution is the description of the evolved nature of life and human beings including behavior good and bad, Races evolved with migration out of Africa beginning over 300,000 years ago for the adaptation to different climates, and science makes no judgement as to any race is superior to another.

The territorial, tribal and racial nature of races is shared in degrees with other species in competition of space and resources. All species, subspecies and varieties including race in the history of humanity compete to resources and space based on natural survival instincts in the adaptation to differences and changing environments over time.

Go to an ape. 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? I watched a video a few days ago where a man at some kind of animal reserve or zoo imitated the behavior of an ape, jumping up and down, pounding his chest etc through the safety glass. Yes, one might say such a display is amusing, especially with the music that was playing on this 'short' clip. But are you going to try to tell me that we as humans are somehow on the same level as those of the rest of the animal kingdom? I would venture to say that anyone who acts like an animal acts stupid. I mean, you would have to be really deluded if you were to believe otherwise. The human brain is about three times as big as the brain of what is claimed to be our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Moreover, a part of the brain called the cerebral cortex – which plays a key role in memory, attention, awareness and thought – contains twice as many cells in humans as the same region in chimpanzees. Differences and similarities between human and chimpanzee neural progenitors during cerebral cortex development.

The sciences of evolution do support the superiority of homo sapiens over other species in term sof many factors. Primates evolved over time for the adaptation of different environments is simply facts of evolution. The evolution of races do not have any objective basis for the superiority of one race over another.

We are on the same level as the animal kingdom in the respect that we all die and we have no preeminence above the beast (Ecclesiastes 3:19), but we have been called to a higher purpose through Yahshua our Savior who died for us, not for animal kind, but to bring us (human kind) in to the Kingdom. In my opinion, your theory which you hold to does indeed promulgate the lie that some people are more evolved than others and death is looked upon with a stone cold gaze by those who believe this theory by suggesting those who died and weren't able to reproduce weren't fit enough ("survival of the fittest").

You are appealing to your religious belief here concerning the similarities and differences between the evolved nature of humans and other related primate species, The sciences of evolution DO NOT promulgate that some people are evolved more than others. Races evolved to adapt to different climates with no one race superior to another race,

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.” How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism? If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have eliminated unselfish behavior. Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution.

The evolved nature of what you call altruism is in reality an evolved behavior of all species, and not any sort of obstinate enigma, particularly in the more advance species of life where the collective survival of the social unites over the survival of the individual, and yes individuals will give their lives for the benefit of the survival of social unit, whether family or tribe.

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. 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. 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?

Language is not a unique factor of the human species. For example. Sea mammals such as whales are known to have complex different languages and dialects in the different herds.

Warbling Whales Speak A Language All Their Own

Scientists have used the mathematics of information theory to confirm that the songs of humpback whales have a complex syntax containing the elements of language.

www.sciencedaily.com

The songs of the humpback whale are among the most complex in the animal kingdom. Researchers have now mathematically confirmed that whales have their own syntax that uses sound units to build phrases that can be combined to form songs that last for hours.

Until now, only humans have demonstrated the ability to use such a hierarchical structure of communication. The research, published online in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, offers a new approach to studying animal communication.

Like in whales and other species of advanced mammals languages are an evolved property of the species.

If people were to believe in the Bible and accept it, there wouldn't be the racial divisions that they are today. We are all created in the image of Yahweh. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve. And we are children of the Most High. Such knowledge always inspires me to do everything in my power to help others who have a need. The theory of evolution is an empty ideology that will cost people their salvation. It's an ideology that opposes faith in the Bible and does not embolden us to live by the high ideals and morality set forth in the Word of Yahweh.

This is a very idealistic misleading view of the Bible and the history of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism and Christianity. Tribal identity is also an overwhelming problem Islam as well, The history persecution, ethnic cleansing, pogroms and tribal wars is a documented history in contrast to your idealistic belief.

The Torah, Bible and the Quran are rooted in tribal and racial identity, and wars and conflicts based on the scripture and as witnessed throughout our history, Your overwhelming bias against the sciences of evolution is rooted in your intentional ignorance of science and misinformation documented above.and based on an ancient tribal texts with out provenance and science,

 

[Astrophile]

We are on the same level as the animal kingdom in the respect that we all die and we have no preeminence above the beast (Ecclesiastes 3:19), but we have been called to a higher purpose through Yahshua our Savior who died for us, not for animal kind, but to bring us (human kind) in to the Kingdom. In my opinion, your theory which you hold to does indeed promulgate the lie that some people are more evolved than others and death is looked upon with a stone cold gaze by those who believe this theory by suggesting those who died and weren't able to reproduce weren't fit enough ("survival of the fittest").

You are confusing 'fitness' in an evolutionary sense with 'fitness' in other senses. There have been many people, such as Isaac Newton, Henry Cavendish, Florence Nightingale and Caroline Herschel, who did not reproduce and were therefore unfit in the evolutionary sense, but that does not mean that they were unfit in the sense of being stupid or wicked or incapable of contributing to society.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Good morning IndigoChild5559.

My argument is that the theory of evolution is bad science.

Except that it's not. The various scientists from their respective fields, from genetics to archaeology, strictly follow the rules for scientific investigation. You simply don't like what they have discovered because it contradictions your religious beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good morning Dan From Smithville.

You said: "If people use a scientific theory to advance racist views, that is not the fault of science or some inherent property of a scientific theory." I don't know if you pay attention to social media, but racism is a very real problem in our modern day society and it's only getting worse. Some of the things I encounter on social media are truly horrible, expressed by people who espouse to believe in the theory of evolution.

I'm aware of racism and that it is expressed in popular culture. I have no idea what you mean "espouse to believe in the theory of evolution". This has zero to do in supporting that racism is an evolutionary concept.

Yes, you could argue that science is impartial and that science is not racist in itself, however, it can be when faulty scientific reasoning is used because many people have an agenda and are motivated by hate rather than love. And faulty scientific reasoning comes about many times because people are [not] impartial. They don't want to believe in a Creator, so they gravitate to everything but sound reasoning. The only agenda of the Bible however is to bring people in to the Kingdom by equipping us with faith and teaching us what we need to do to be there.

All of your examples would be a function of people and not some inherent property of a scientific theory. The Bible has been used to support racism. By your reasoning, that would mean the conclusion would be the Bible is inherently evil and racism is a biblical concept. When you paint with such a big brush you cover what you like as well as what you don't.

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? 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.

There is no such thing as more evolved or equally evolved. Either is a meaningless appellation in describing living things. That people misunderstand the science and abuse it or use it poorly to support racism or any negative belief is on the people and not fundamental to the science. I can't figure how this isn't obvious, but clearly it is not to all.

Go to an ape. 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? I watched a video a few days ago where a man at some kind of animal reserve or zoo imitated the behavior of an ape, jumping up and down, pounding his chest etc through the safety glass. Yes, one might say such a display is amusing, especially with the music that was playing on this 'short' clip. But are you going to try to tell me that we as humans are somehow on the same level as those of the rest of the animal kingdom? I would venture to say that anyone who acts like an animal acts stupid. I mean, you would have to be really deluded if you were to believe otherwise. The human brain is about three times as big as the brain of what is claimed to be our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. Moreover, a part of the brain called the cerebral cortex – which plays a key role in memory, attention, awareness and thought – contains twice as many cells in humans as the same region in chimpanzees. Differences and similarities between human and chimpanzee neural progenitors during cerebral cortex development.

This is meaningless meandering and has nothing to do with racism. In this rambling aside, I can find anything that is evidence that racism is a concept of the theory of evolution.

We are on the same level as the animal kingdom in the respect that we all die and we have no preeminence above the beast (Ecclesiastes 3:19), but we have been called to a higher purpose through Yahshua our Savior who died for us, not for animal kind, but to bring us (human kind) in to the Kingdom. In my opinion, your theory which you hold to does indeed promulgate the lie that some people are more evolved than others and death is looked upon with a stone cold gaze by those who believe this theory by suggesting those who died and weren't able to reproduce weren't fit enough ("survival of the fittest").

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.” How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism? If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have eliminated unselfish behavior. Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution.

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. 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. 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?

If people were to believe in the Bible and accept it, there wouldn't be the racial divisions that they are today. We are all created in the image of Yahweh. We are all descendants of Adam and Eve. And we are children of the Most High. Such knowledge always inspires me to do everything in my power to help others who have a need. The theory of evolution is an empty ideology that will cost people their salvation. It's an ideology that opposes faith in the Bible and does not embolden us to live by the high ideals and morality set forth in the Word of Yahweh.

The text seems to have wondered off on some rambling agenda that doesn't support racism as a fundamental property of evolution or the theory of evolution.

Honestly, I have no idea what this is supposed to tell me or anyone.

Racism is a human behavior and anything could potentially be employed to support or propagate racism. That anything is no more conceptually racist than the scientific theory.

 

[YoursTrue]

You simply don't like what they have discovered because it contradictions your religious beliefs.

Of course you're not speaking to me and I understand that, but you need to back up your assertions with facts.