Posted on 12/05/2010 7:57:20 AM PST by Titus-Maximus
The Theory of Evolution necessarily lays the foundation for Racism. This is absolutely unavoidable.
I believe I can assert, without fear of contradiction, that the Theory of Creation by a loving Creator, a loving Creator who is a person with intention, can lay the foundation to support the proposition that all men are created equal in dignity!
How is belief that we are a very young and very genetically similar species with adaptations to local climate conditions( balancing between vitamin D synthesis and protection from the Sun, in the case of skin color), predispose one to racism?
Many arguments were made to justify the exploitation of Africa and slavery, and theology was also at the forefront of those justifications. “the Children of Ham” defense was used by both Muslims and Christians to justify slavery of Africans.
Not true.
In the early days this was thought and even today individuals such as yourself believe this.
The reality is that genetic purity is undesirable and genetic impurity produces robustness.
The term for this, as it is taught in genetics class, is Hybrid Vigor.
Some geneticists will tell you that American Exceptionalism exists because America has a highly hybridized gene pool.
Adding fresh genes to the gene pool always improves the gene pool.
Belief in Creationism supports equality.
Islam promotes the belief in Creationism
Hence, Islam supports equality
Somehow, this logic is flawed. Me thinks creationism relates to benevolence is flawed.
Another take on your bashing of evolution argument is the linking of evolution to racism. Nuclear science has given us the ability to produce clean energy and make monster bombs. Because of the latter, in the late 1900's die-hard socialists all but removed America from using the former while keeping up the arsenal of the latter. Creationists are striving to do the same with the science of Evolution. They would eliminate the science which would have no effect on racist beliefs.
Darwinism was the AGW of it’s time, but immensely more successful!
“How is belief that we are a very young and very genetically similar species with adaptations to local climate conditions( balancing between vitamin D synthesis and protection from the Sun, in the case of skin color), predispose one to racism?
Many arguments were made to justify the exploitation of Africa and slavery, and theology was also at the forefront of those justifications. “the Children of Ham” defense was used by both Muslims and Christians to justify slavery of Africans.”
The second point is that I did not assert that Creationist adherents would necessarily reject Racism, but only that it is a necessary, even though not sufficient, precondition to assert that “all men are created equal in dignity”.
Evolution and survival of the fittest outlook provides little room to make the equality in dignity assertion. IMHO
Interesting. Thanks for posting.
Evolutionary adaptability is the accepted mechanism of any differences between human populations, among ANY people who accept the common descent (and therefore brotherhood) of all mankind. Unless you are willing to presuppose a miraculous cause of human differences, evolutionary adaptation to local climactic conditions IS the explanation for “racial” differences.
Acceptance of evolutionary theory is no barrier to most for belief in God’s special plan for mankind and his endowment of man with an eternal soul. Atheism may well be incompatible with a view of the true dignity of man. But evolution certainly is not..... to most.
Any useful scientific theory has the potential to be abused. By "useful" I mean having explanatory power.
This does not apply only to abstractions like theories. All sorts of useful things can be abused; matches, knives, computers, etc.
Not a geneticist but would believe separate races had a high degree of purity as they developed. What is amazing is that progressive-leftists who embrace evolution and then utterly demand allegiance to the idea that all these races are spot on equal in all attributes and in every respect. Other than a Creator doing that - it is a laughable hypothesis with a probability of one in a million trillion! But that is what they say.
We seem to have different understandings of what the term “Evolutionary Theory” denotes.
As I use the term, it means All Life owes its existence to an Evolutionary Imperative, and is equivalent to a “First Cause”, thus precluding a “Creator” as such.
I have no quarrel with “Evolutionary Adaptability”.
Is it responsible for what we classify as “race”? I don’t know, but I also don’t care, since I believe in a “Creator” who has bestowed equal dignity amongst all members of mankind.
It is the American ideal that all people are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, that we were all created equal, and that we should all be equal under the law.
In science it is hard to make judgment calls like that.
Is a person with a copy of the sickle cell anemia gene equal, less than, or superior to - someone without it. Depends on your chances of contracting malaria I suppose.
White skin is superior in a more polar climate, and black skin is superior in an equatorial climate. But with sunscreen and good hats on the white guy, and vitamin D supplemented in the diet of the black guy - and the conditions that led to these adaptations are no longer in force.
Being stocky is superior in a cold climate, being lanky is superior in a hot climate.
Narrow nostrils for cold, wide nostrils for hot.
Now who is to say what is “better”? They are all equal in that they are all equivalent in that they are all adaptations to local conditions.
What is your explanation for human differences if not natural selection of genetic variation? Did God have to MAKE Black people black by other means, or are people in Africa going to naturally turn blacker as a defense against the Sun and with no need to accentuate vitamin D synthesis?
Evolutionary theory is that there will be natural selection of genetic variation that will act to change species over time.
Common descent of all species is the theory that evolutionary change acted upon a common ancestor to derive the variations of life we see upon the Earth.
Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that life formed spontaneously utilizing natural law in a scientifically understandable process.
Nothing in evolution, common descent, or abiogenesis for that matter - precludes a Creator. It merely suggests, as all science must, that the physical processes of such should be understandable by utilization of physical forces.
If your beef is with Atheism, call it Atheism.
If your beef is with Abiogenesis, call it Abiogenesis.
If your beef is with the Common descent of species, call it common descent.
But when you call it ALL evolution, I am forced to conclude you don't really have a clue WHAT it is you are against.
What about those knee jerk conservatives who embrace evolution and laugh at fundamentalists?
I have a quarrel with: “Darwin’s general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) “descent with modification”
Your proposition “I am forced to conclude you don’t really have a clue WHAT it is you are against.” is nothing more than deliberate ignorance on your part.
I think I have been explicit in describing what I am talking about and asserting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.