The Left Wants You To Believe The Bible Is White Supremacist So They Can Force Evolution Down Your Throat

It's a no-holds-barred attack on Christianity to advance the opposing worldview, and if that means smearing as racist a — *checks notes* — time-tested historical account in which a divine Middle Eastern man is the central figure, so be it.

“Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” is Scientific American’s not-so-subtle way of saying this synonymous phrase: “The Bible is racist.”

It would be easy to dismiss the whole article as record-setting idiocy or editorial catfishing. After all, what editor at a magazine with “scientific” in the name green-lights an article arguing that the religion that worships a man born between Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq is “white supremacist”? There’s something more nefarious under the brainlessness, however, and we shouldn’t breeze past it.

This headline is just the latest in the left’s crusade not only to brand everything that challenges their worldview as racist, but also to grant scientific legitimacy to their race-baiting. This time, however, they’re aiming their fire straight at the heart of the scriptures on which Christians base their beliefs — and they aren’t trying to hide the reason why.

If they can convince you not only that your Donald Trump-voting Christian neighbor is a racist but that the Bible itself is the epitome of white supremacy, they can ban it from polite society and ostracize anyone who would defend it. Critical race theory is good. Jesus is bad. Now cough up your hard-earned tax dollars so we can teach that to your kids.

The author, Allison Hopper, isn’t out to provide proof for evolution (and by “evolution,” both that article and this one refer to macroevolution). She merely asserts it as fact. Instead, her quest is “to unmask the lie that evolution denial is about religion and recognize that at its core, it is a form of white supremacy that perpetuates segregation and violence against Black bodies.”

After lamenting that bookstores don’t contain enough tomes about our dark-skinned ancestors who launched not only human genetics but also human culture, she lambastes creationists for “loudly insist[ing] that their point of view deserves equal time in the classroom” under what she calls the “guise of ‘religious freedom.’”

Many people oppose teaching intelligent design in government school science class, and that’s a debate for another day, but Hopper’s opposition cuts deeper. She says:

This is patently false. While Joseph Smith and Brigham Young fabricated the Cain narrative (among other heretical myths) for the Mormon church, the idea of black skin being a punishment is not in any way biblical, and it certainly isn’t “at the heart of white evangelical creationism.”

That Isn’t Biblical…

Hopper is referring here to Genesis 4:15 following the murder of Abel. The passage says, “And the Lord put a mark on Cain.” No reading of the Hebrew words translated as “mark” implies “dark skin,” as Hopper insists. In fact, the mark placed on Cain isn’t even part of his punishment; it’s a result of Cain crying out that his punishment of being a “fugitive and a wanderer” is more than he can bear and will lead to his own murder.

The mark God places on Cain is actually an act of mercy and grace. Look at the account:

Orthodox Christianity, and thus “literal interpretations of the Christian Bible” do not teach that “white skin was created in God’s image.” Hopper’s claim to the contrary is either glaring intellectual dishonesty or plain ignorance. The Bible teaches, and Christians believe, that man — as in, mankind or humanity — was created in God’s image. Among many other biblical teachings, this one about human beings being made in the image of God, or imago Dei, is one of the most powerful Christian condemnations of racism.

While evolutionists such as Hopper say the Bible is rife with racism, they elevate an origin theory that posits black African descendants as little more than animals, and brutal oppression of the weak as the only way to advance and thrive. Dehumanization and oppression sound an awful lot like real racism. Nonetheless, Hopper suggests Christians believe the Bible narrative is made up of an all-white cast and that scripture is thus a source of racism.

“The fantasy of a continuous line of white descendants segregates white heritage from Black bodies,” she says. “In the real world, this mythology translates into lethal effects on people who are Black. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible are part of the ‘fake news’ epidemic that feeds the racial divide in our country.”

Evolution Has Fueled Racism

Of course, woke evolutionists are desperate to flip the racism argument on Christians because it diverts attention away from the racist genesis of the Darwinian theories they espouse.

The complete title of Charles Darwin’s seminal book was “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.” In his book “The Descent of Man,” Darwin recorded, “The Western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization,” and said, “The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.” In other words, Darwin’s white supremacy was underpinned by his evolutionary theory, the same theory Hopper champions.

Darwin’s white supremacist musings weren’t confined to the page. As Phil Moore noted, Darwin’s evolutionary theory influenced racism and genocide the world over. In America, it was used to justify the killing of Native Americans. In Germany, the Holocaust. In the Soviet Union, the murder of non-Russian people. The Serbs used it to rationalize the genocide against Kosovans and Croatians.

Just as there’s no way to get around the horrors that evolutionary ideas have prompted, there’s no way to get around the actual anti-racist message inherent in the biblical message: From salvation being for both Jews and Gentiles, to the parable of the Good Samaritan; from Gentile women such as Tamar, Ruth, Rahab, and Bathsheba weaving through the ancestry of Christ, to his command to preach the gospel to all nations. The thrust of Reformed belief is that sin damns, Jesus saves, and people can be justified by faith alone — there are no ethnic or racial advantages or disadvantages.

“After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, ‘Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!’” the apostle John wrote of heaven, as recorded in Revelation, capturing the diversity of God’s kingdom.

Hopper’s goal, and that of the radical left, isn’t to make a legitimate argument for evolution or a good-faith case that the biblical creation account is racist, however. The author of the Scientific American article explicitly states her activist aim: “My hope is that if we make the connection between creationism and racist ideology clearer, we will provide more ammunition to get science into the classroom — and into our culture at large.”

That’s it. It’s a no-holds-barred attack on Christianity to advance its opposition among your kids and with your tax dollars, and if that means smearing as racist a — *checks notes* — time-tested historical account in which a divine Middle Eastern man is the central figure, so be it.

In his book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin put forth the idea that all life came from a single common ancestor and changed without design, goal, or purpose - our brain and morality developed as such - and humans are merely another animal - as he put forth in Descent of Man::

…Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."
"We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.”
-Charles Darwin, Descent of Man

In the Darwinian view of humans as animals, what would cause us to stop practicing animal husbandry within our own species? Reduce the meaning of "human" to "just another animal", and eugenics is fair game. Scientific data is well supported in animal husbandry. Eugenics is only abhorrent to those who recognize that there is something transcendently special about humans.

In the early decades of the 20th century, Human Zoos were created where thousands of indigenous peoples were put on public display and touted as “missing links” between man and apes. Their public display was arranged with the enthusiastic support of the most elite members of the scientific community, and it was promoted uncritically by America's leading newspapers.

With Darwinism, there is always an inferior race and a superior race - there must be an intermediate bridging the gap - or as Darwin states:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
- Charles Darwin, Descent of Man

If Darwin allowed Dawkins to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist then he also allowed scientists to be an intellectually fulfilled racist.

Racism and eugenics were the hallmarks of the theory of human evolution in the early 20th century, representing a clear consensus of evolutionary biologists as well as other scientists and leaders in higher education and government (endorsed by the Supreme Court in 1926). Eugenics is an ugly part of American history that was taught to our children (See: Hunter’s Civic Biology ) - a movement that caused the compulsory sterilization laws in 30 U.S. states that resulted in more than 60,000 sterilizations of disabled.

At the core of the current theory of evolution is materialism/naturalism and this is a worldview with consequences. For example, as Stephen Meyer points out -the constitution assumes:

Free will, hence the capacity for self-governance.
Moral responsibility hence accountability under the law.
Intrinsic dignity of the human being, hence inalienable human rights.
Unchanging moral principles and a stable human nature, making possible a stable system of Constitutional law.

In contrast, under the materialistic picture of reality pervasive in our culture, you get this:

Not free will, but determinism.
Since moral ideas evolve and are instinctive rather than a matter of choice, moral responsibility and accountability are undermined.
No conception of a design or purpose behind life, therefore the erosion of the concepts of human dignity and inalienable rights.
Since human nature evolves and moral law evolves, the supreme law governing our political system is also infinitely malleable.

These are not Conservative principles and is partially to blame for our current state of affairs.

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.