The increasing spread
of evolutionist doctrine has much to answer for in relation to the way people
often treat each other.
Sadly, people rarely recognize
that the prejudices which have slowly become ingrained in their psyche have
often been a result—directly or indirectly—of evolutionary thinking.
One of the prevalent evidences
of man’s inhumanity to man is racism. Put simply, racism is prejudice
against people of other ‘races’1
for that reason alone. Stereotypical rules are applied to demean individuals
based on their cultural background, skin colour, appearance or accent.
More often than not, these
rules allow an unfounded assumption of superiority over that individual, which
in turn justifies any feelings of disdain or indifference towards them. In
truth, this attitude is usually based on nothing more than fear, ignorance,
and misunderstanding. The manifestations of racism can be blatant, such as
in hatred from the Ku Klux Klan or the oppressiveness of apartheid; it can
also be as simple as telling degrading anecdotes or possessing a cold attitude
of indifference.
As a result of evolutionary
thinking, many in Western society are unable to experience heartfelt sympathy
for starving children in poverty-stricken Third World countries. For reasons
they could never justify, they believe ‘life’ somehow means less
to these strangers with different skin colour and features. Incredibly, I
have heard this type of comment from ‘educated’ people!
This misinformed attitude
is understandable if people accept the idea of ‘survival of the fittest’,
that the rules of the animal kingdom must apply to humans ‘because we’ve
all evolved from animals’!
Neither racism—nor
the idea of evolution—started with Darwin. Both are manifestations of
basing one’s thinking on a non-Biblical foundation. However, Darwin's
writings greatly fuelled racism, providing a ‘scientific’ justification
for it. His book’s subtitle referred to the ‘preservation of favoured
races’.
The Bible, of course,
teaches in the first chapter of Genesis that God created the heavens and the
Earth, and all life upon it. There is no evidence to show that man’s
existence came about in any other way. The theory of evolution is based on
assumption and misinformation.
If we believe the Bible,
all of the Bible, then it is clear that all people were created
by God. ‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul’(Genesis
2:7).
Acts 17:26 says: ‘And
[God] hath made of one blood [i.e. from one original ancestor, Adam and his
wife, Eve] all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth …’
That means we're all related!
The origin of the earth’s
different ‘races’ (the Bible doesn’t use this term, but calls
them tribes and nations) has long caused unnecessary confusion among both
Christians and non-Christians. The truth is surprisingly simple.
Most evolutionists today
wouldn’t dispute the Biblical creationist understanding that all ‘races’
came from the same original population (they would not agree that it was only
two individuals), although that wasn’t always the case. Evolutionists
teach that these groups ‘evolved’ independently from each other,
separated for many tens of thousands of years. Evolutionists feel this length
of time is necessary to explain the development of physical differences between
the ‘races’.
This misleading concept
gives rise to the idea that some ‘races’ have developed and become
more ‘sophisticated’ faster than others, leading to the ultimate
conclusion (often subconsciously) that certain ‘races’ are superior
to others.
The Answers Book,
by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling, and Carl Wieland, offers a clear and concise
explanation of how the different 'races' developed after the confounding of
the language and population dispersion at Babel (recorded in Genesis 11:1–9).
The book provides logical, scientific evidence that mankind has descended
from Noah and his family (and Adam and Eve before that).
It explains how the dispersion,
involving the breaking up of a large group into many small groups (comprising
members who spoke the same language) who only breed within the group, ensured
the resultant populations would have different mixes of genes for various
physical features.
Adam and Eve, created
perfect, would have had the genetic information enabling their offspring to
have the many combinations of skin, hair, and eye colour existent in the world
today.2
Today’s population
descended from Noah and his family after the Flood, so the amount of genes
available would probably have been slightly reduced from those of Adam and
Eve.
Thus, the dispersion ensured
that within a short time certain fixed differences3
would become apparent in some of the small groups, which we would call separate
‘races’.4
In Romans, we are told
that all men are born equal:
‘For all have
sinned, and come short of the glory of God’
(Romans 3:23),
but the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ has brought the possibility of redemption and salvation:
‘For God so loved
the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
[regardless of which tribe or ‘race’ they belong to] believeth
in him should not perish, but have everlasting life’ (John 3:16).
Among believers:
‘There is neither
Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female:
for ye are all one in Christ Jesus’
(Gal. 3:28)
In the light of God’s
Word, there can be no justification for promoting or condoning racism.
MADONNA AND EVOLUTIONARY RACISM
So-called rock ‘star’
Madonna was quoted as saying she would be unlikely to choose a black partner
again. Claiming to have been mistreated when she dated black men, she allegedly
said: ‘Maybe a lot of it has to do with the fact that they haven’t
had the same chances as we white people have had to be educated or exposed
to things that make you more evolved.’5
Sadly, millions of young
people follow all the antics and comments of Madonna, whose activities scarcely
merit a claim of cultural superiority. The statement quoted confuses biology
and social opportunity, but highlights the all-too-common belief that some
‘races’ are less ‘evolved’ than others.
In fact, modern molecular
biology confirms the Biblical view that all the peoples of the world are astonishingly
close genetically. For example, it is common knowledge in the medical profession
that, when looking for someone as an organ donor for a transplant, the person
whose tissue type is most suitable for you (whether you are black or white,
for example) may very well be someone of the ‘opposite colour’.
In reality, all of us have the same brown-black pigment, melanin, in our skin,
simply making more or less of that pigment.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
- The
term ‘race’ used to mean such things as the English race, the
Irish race, etc. but since Darwin we tend to think of the word differently,
so most today think in evolutionary terms about that word. We should use
‘tribes and nations’ or ‘ethnic groups’ because of this
wrong understanding of the word ‘race’. Return to
Text.
- Some
features may arise from a loss of information due to mutation since the
Fall. Red hair, for instance, appears to be due to an inherited mutation
such that the brown-black fraction of the pigment melanin cannot be produced,
leaving only the reddish component. Since the other fraction affords more
protection against the sun, redheads are more susceptible to sunburn. Return
to Text.
- Such
differences do not arise out of nowhere; the information was already present,
just that a new combination of genes can appear different. These differences
are not only trivial, (e.g. more or less of the same skin pigment) they
are only ‘fixed’ if that group only intermarries within its own
group. As individuals from different groups intermarry, genes are again
allowed to combine in ways which will lead to a greater potential for variation,
and a lessening of apparent differences between the groups. In theory, such
intermarriage should be a genetic benefit, increasing the overall information
within offspring, and diluting harmful genes which have arisen through mutations
since the Fall. Return to Text.
- See
The Answers Book for a fuller discussion. Return
to Text.
- The
Daily Telegraph, Sydney, October 15, 1996. Return to Text.
