Creationism is just as racist as evolution

I was surprised to read the headline. More in the absurdity that either creationism and evolution as being racist. It is hard to wonder why some one would make such a statement. Creationist never cease to surprise me. People use logical disjoint to justify their racist view, Creationist use logical disjoint to claim that creationism is science. The difference here is creationism tries to make a claim that is utterly false.

Interestingly enough, modern human population genetics shows that the majority of the genetic variation in humans is not partitioned according to race. Therefore, modern evolutionary theory provides no basis whatsoever for racism. Now if creationists would bother to read the scientific literature they would realize this and stop making ridiculous claims. But what are the odds of that?

Whatever TOE props think of their scientific myth, it sure was thought to have racist implications in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As well, it was surely a precious gift utilized by a few well known murderous dictators to clease our little blue ball of a home from countless millions of unfit members of certain 'groups' within a single generation.

Yes, yes. We can now claim it was all such a horrible misunderstanding of TOE. The tentative understanding of the 18th century gave way to the clarified understanding of the 20th century. So, even though Darwin was mistaken in his racist leanings (if not all-out, die-hard racism), all has been remedied and put to rest (they cross their fingers just in case).

Well, one thing is clear: TOE has not done a better job than religion at educating humanity about the nature of its being. It is curious though, why TOE props are so hot to get into the philo biz anyway.

I sure do hope for the sake of humanity that ID will help put the TOE genie back in its bottle and let it float out to sea for the dolphins to play a bit 'a water polo.

An ID proponent calling the theory of evolution a scientific myth?! Haha, I needed a good laugh! Thanks for the same tired old BS steven. How about telling us all about the testable hypotheses of ID that are going to blow away the theory of evolution?

Please do not feed the troll!

it was surely a precious gift utilized by a few well known murderous dictators

Well, one thing is clear: TOE has not done a better job than religion at educating humanity about the nature of its being. It is curious though, why TOE props are so hot to get into the philo biz anyway.

I've gotten into a few debates with creationists recently and I've always been surprised they don't use this argument. It's unfortunate because it's easier to counter since the argument requires no knowledge of science.

Steven: IQ tests had racist implications in the early 20th century. And, famously, the American Psychological Association had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder until 1973. Of course new discoveries get warped to reflect existing bigotries. But you know what? We learn, and we change, and our science changes with us.

mrg said: Please do not feed the troll!

Oh please. You can sit there and play "pin the tail on the racist" until the cows come home, but he's not listening, and nobody here believes him.
You're preaching to the choir.

Now if you just enjoy arguing with people, who am I to object? Don't think I'm going to stand in you way, have at it. But if you think you're doing anything but entertaining yourself ... sorry, you're not. Really. Don't kid yourself. You're not.

Amen mrg!

It's true, mrg. You'll never persuade steve of the truth. He's got his hands over his eyes and his fingers in his ears and he's going lalala for all he's worth.

But two points: one, asking anyone who's interested in the facts to remain silent in the face of gross untruth is asking too much. And two, steve is not the only one who might be reading.

Dave Luckett said: And two, steve is not the only one who might be reading.

Dave Luckett, 'his hands over his eyes and his fingers in his ears...'?
This is extremely difficult; impossible? The amount of physiological contortion borders on the mental contortion required to believe as Steve believes.
Then again, as the 'Newton of ID theory' often visits faith healers, so the Steves often involve themselves in mental self mutalation.
Rob.

KP said:

Dave Luckett said: And two, steve is not the only one who might be reading.

And to all those trolls, remember you need look no further than a Nazi soldier's belt buckle to see that Hitler is an albatross worn by christians, not "Darwinists" [sic].

Dave Luckett said: But two points: one, asking anyone who's interested in the facts to remain silent in the face of gross untruth is asking too much. And two, steve is not the only one who might be reading.

I don't know about the rest of you. But I feel the number of trolls have dropped in PT in the last few months. The slugfests and flamewars used run for many dozen posts are less common now a days. Many familiar trolls, Farfarman comes to mind, have gone MIA or AWOL.

May be the puppeteers (Creationist predatori majoria) have decided to give some time off for their puppets (C. vulgaris) for much needed rest, recovery and rejuvenation. No point in keeping all the electrons in the excited state in this post election period. May be they will come back in force during the next mid-term election season, 2010 March to November.

Or may be the economy is taking its toll. Is there any demographic data available about the breakdown of science supports and creationists? My hunch is that most science backers have more stable jobs in academia and R&D companies. The creationists might be mostly drawn from entrepreneurs, sales, marketing, and similar lines of work. That could explain economy taking a bigger toll on the creationists than on the science supporters.

There a couple opinion pieces in today Courier-Journal (Louisville)

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090325/OPINION02/903250394

that I found pleasantly amusing. Of course my comments were quickly and vigorously addressed with personal attacks. If you're bored and looking for some light entertainment you may want to wander over.

Personally, I think the strangest thing about creationists trying to link Evolution to racism is it's complete lack of bearing on the question of the truth or falsehood of Evolution.

Imagine an alternate history where there was no racism before Darwin and there was a complete written record of the acceptance of racism based on Darwin's theory.
How would that have any effect on the physical truth or falsehood of his theory?

I think the proper scientific answer to a Creationist accusing Evolution of causing or promoting racism is:
"What's your point?"

I would point out that up until just a few years ago, Bob Jones University, one of the primary purveyors of "creation science" textbooks in the U.S., prohibited interracial dating by its students. The racism of Bob Jones University was obviously not in anyway based on evolutionary theory, nor was the racism of Jerry Falwell, who preached that segregation was mandated by the Bible.

steven said: Whatever TOE props think of their scientific myth, it sure was thought to have racist implications in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As well, it was surely a precious gift utilized by a few well known murderous dictators to clease our little blue ball of a home from countless millions of unfit members of certain 'groups' within a single generation. Yes, yes. We can now claim it was all such a horrible misunderstanding of TOE. The tentative understanding of the 18th century gave way to the clarified understanding of the 20th century. So, even though Darwin was mistaken in his racist leanings (if not all-out, die-hard racism), all has been remedied and put to rest (they cross their fingers just in case). Well, one thing is clear: TOE has not done a better job than religion at educating humanity about the nature of its being. It is curious though, why TOE props are so hot to get into the philo biz anyway. I sure do hope for the sake of humanity that ID will help put the TOE genie back in its bottle and let it float out to sea for the dolphins to play a bit 'a water polo.

Robert van aBakel said: Dave Luckett, 'his hands over his eyes and his fingers in his ears...'? This is extremely difficult; impossible?

The Southern Baptist school (k-12) I attended for 2 years allowed whites only and claimed this was biblical.

Ravilyn Sanders said: The slugfests and flamewars used run for many dozen posts are less common now a days. Many familiar trolls, Farfarman comes to mind, have gone MIA or AWOL.

What baffles me is why creationists make so much of the "evolution is racist" argument. If one compared the racial attitudes of a large random sample of creationists and a large random sample of evolutionists, I'd guess that it wouldn't be the evolutionists who would consider potentially racist implications of their theories a bad thing.

Robert van aBakel said: Dave Luckett, 'his hands over his eyes and his fingers in his ears...'? This is extremely difficult; impossible? The amount of physiological contortion borders on the mental contortion required to believe as Steve believes. Then again, as the 'Newton of ID theory' often visits faith healers, so the Steves often involve themselves in mental self mutalation. Rob.

CJColucci said: What baffles me is why creationists make so much of the "evolution is racist" argument. If one compared the racial attitudes of a large random sample of creationists and a large random sample of evolutionists, I'd guess that it wouldn't be the evolutionists who would consider potentially racist implications of their theories a bad thing.

That's "evilutionist" anyway.

The word race in the types of humans use does not appear in the Bible. It does not recognize a racial distinction. it says “And hath [God hath] made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” Acts 17:26 (KJV) Racism is really a evolutionist term. All man’s many variations can easily come from two mid brown people. Well maybe a few more. Not Adam and Eve but Mr and Mrs Noah and their three sons wives. There is a great article on this at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races

mrg said:

Ravilyn Sanders said: The slugfests and flamewars used run for many dozen posts are less common now a days. Many familiar trolls, Farfarman comes to mind, have gone MIA or AWOL.

I ran into Fafarman elsewhere and he's as noisy as ever, but you're right, there seems to be a lull in the fighting on PT. Of course Fafarman is an extreme case -- he's so completely obnoxious that he's been booted off all the lunatic-fringe forums. I like to think of him as Larry "Banned By Santa Claus" Fafarman.

John Kwok said: Fafarman is almost as much a lunatic as his idol Bill Dembski or a certain MN evolutionary developmental biologist who shall remain nameless.

I mean, it’s very odd to come to the conclusion that Hitler was inspired by Darwin when Hitler’s Anti-Semitic speeches read and sound as though they were plagiarized from Martin Luther’s “Of the Jews And Their Lies.”

FL said:

I mean, it’s very odd to come to the conclusion that Hitler was inspired by Darwin when Hitler’s Anti-Semitic speeches read and sound as though they were plagiarized from Martin Luther’s “Of the Jews And Their Lies.”

Perhaps Benjamin Wiker's article will help clarify. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26346

FL said:

I mean, it’s very odd to come to the conclusion that Hitler was inspired by Darwin when Hitler’s Anti-Semitic speeches read and sound as though they were plagiarized from Martin Luther’s “Of the Jews And Their Lies.”

Perhaps Benjamin Wiker's article will help clarify. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26346

If ... various checks ... do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule.

If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. [emphasis mine]

Darwin was unaware of the human genome and of genetics. Like every other person of his day, he did not know that the genetic differences across the whole of mankind are insufficient to differentiate any two individuals into genetically identifiable "races" - that there is often more genetic difference between two neighbouring and superficially similar individuals in Africa than there is between them and any other person on the planet, but that it still doesn't amount to much.

His ignorance of those facts explains, while it does not excuse, his racist assumptions and the (false) conclusions he drew. Only his genuine kindliness, gentleness and horror of violence and oppression ameliorates his unthinking attitude, common to practically every European of his day, that European-descended people were culturally or intellectually superior - this on the basis of nothing more than dominant economics and technology.

Yes, he thought that the superficial physical differences across groups of human beings amounted to naturally selectable genetic traits. He was wrong, dead wrong. Had he seen the evidence, he would have said as much himself, and, I think, would have been vastly heartened and relieved by it.

For despite his ignorance of genetics and his oversight, Charles Darwin was a humane and decent human being. The Nazis would have horrified and sickened him to the depths of his being. Luther's words, had he known of them, would have revolted him. All of which has nothing to do with the main point: that the Theory he proposed explains the divergence and variety of life on Earth, and no other explanation is supported by the evidence.

The argument of this blog post applies to Wiker's article. Wiker says that "Darwin understood the eugenic implications of his own theory". What part of evolutionary theory is that evolutionists believe, but Wiker doesn't, that has eugenic implications? Nothing; the fact that humans evolved from apes has nothing to do with modern racial differences. It has to do with natural selection, which Wiker almost certainly accepts.

FL said:

I mean, it’s very odd to come to the conclusion that Hitler was inspired by Darwin when Hitler’s Anti-Semitic speeches read and sound as though they were plagiarized from Martin Luther’s “Of the Jews And Their Lies.”

Perhaps Benjamin Wiker's article will help clarify. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26346

People,

You can call me Troll, you can call me IDiot, you can call me Nada. It's all OK. Whatever.

Really, the responses have been what? animated? What's the big uproar?

If you read carefully, I do not say evolution is racist. I do say TOE has been used for racist goals. Why I mention this is because I have seen way too much commentary from atheists on the evils of Christianity.

Here's the way I see it. If you demand we keep the TOE and its implications separate, why would you not give Christians the same leeway? Why not separate Christ's message from the abuse of the original institution he set out to create? Why lump it all together?

If evolution has no role to play in any of the dirty deeds of the 20th century, then Christ's message had no role to play in the dirty deeds of the organized religion we call Christianity.

A troll? think not. demanding rationality? if that's possible on the net.

To return to the topic:

Logically, if the idea that there is evolution withing "mankind" leads to racism, then creationism is at least to blame for racism as is science, because creationism accepts evolution within "kinds".

I say "at least", because there is more to it than that. For example, one of the features that distinguishes modern science from pre-scientific attitudes is the pre-scientific idea that there were moral lessons to be learned from nature: the courage of the lion, or the idea that the worth of a person depended upon physical features or from ancestry. "Blue blood" was meant literally. Descent from Canaan made one a slave. The scientific approach separates values from facts. And, of course, this is one of the complaints about evolutionary biology (being a science) from the creationists.

And this is not merely a theoretical, logical inference to be drawn from creationism. A 19th century anti-evolutionist like Agassiz was, even by 19th century standards, a racist. There is a recent book:

Adrian J. Desmond
Darwin's Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin's Views on Human Evolution
Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009

steve said: ... If evolution has no role to play in any of the dirty deeds of the 20th century, then Christ's message had no role to play in the dirty deeds of the organized religion we call Christianity. A troll? think not. demanding rationality? if that's possible on the net.

Oh, fair enough, steve. I rather like the idea of sticking to the original words of Yeshu ben Yusuf the Galilean. With rare exceptions, they're difficult to fault, and it would have been great if the Christian church had managed to keep to them. Only it didn't.

But that to one side. I'm glad that we agree that it's unreasonable to hold Darwin responsible for what he never did, never advocated, and would have been horrified to witness. FL wouldn't acquit him on such flimsy grounds, mind you, but that's FL for you. He'll tell you he's a Christian, too.

But those are not really the words of yours that people are responding to, and it's no use coming the innocent like that.

"Whatever TOE props think of their scientific myth...", for instance. It ain't no myth, steve. It's the best explanation for the diversity of life. It's supported by mountains of evidence that many of the posters here have spent long periods studying, testing, adding to and applying. By calling it that, you are calling them fools or ignorant or credulous. For some odd reason, they resent that. Hell, I do too, and I haven't got their background.

Or these words: "I sure do hope for the sake of humanity that ID will help put the TOE genie back in its bottle and let it float out to sea for the dolphins to play a bit ‘a water polo."

It won't fit back into any bottle, steve. It won't be thrown overboard by remarks like that. Being scornfully dismissive just doesn't cut it. It only makes you look stupid. It makes you sound as though you don't think evidence matters, because you don't actually mention any, but you've made up your mind anyway.

To get rid of the Theory of Evolution is conceptually simple, though. Just find some definite evidence against it, stuff that can be tested and verified. A Cambrian rabbit, maybe, or any definitely anomolous fossil of proven provenance. Mind, it has to be available for testing and investigation, not some rumour you or somebody else picked up on the internet. Some life-form that can be studied closely but can't be related to other life-forms in a nested hierarchy. Some real hole you can find in the facts about genetics. Or some structure that can't be evolved. (Warning - that last one's been tried a lot, and has cracked up every time. Evolution is able to do a lot more than you'd think.)

But you can't get rid of facts without facts, steve. Evidence. Show some. Otherwise, you sound like a chump, and you'll get treated as one. Show some evidence.

Only you can't do that, steve, because there is no such evidence. Not a scrap, not a scintilla, not a grain. It all points the other way. We evolved from earlier forms, steve, and so did every other living thing. That's the fact. Find some different facts - real ones - and you get a Nobel Prize. Ignore the ones we have, or sneer cluelessly at them, and you sound like an ignoramus. Your choice. But don't get all surprised when people react accordingly.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, fair enough, steve ... But those are not really the words of yours that people are responding to, and it's no use coming the innocent like that.

If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. [emphasis mine]

FL, please provide the actual paragraphs where Darwin specifically advocated stopping the breeding of "inferior humans," or are we to assume that you are lying for Jesus yet again?

Furthermore, you have yet to explain exactly how (mis)reading and quotemining Darwin lead to Hitler following through on Martin Luther's genocidal pipedream of annihilating the Jews because they were, according to Luther, the Devil's People for having refused to convert.

FL, please provide the actual paragraphs where Darwin specifically advocated stopping the breeding of “inferior humans,” or are we to assume that you are lying for Jesus yet again?

FL said:

FL, please provide the actual paragraphs where Darwin specifically advocated stopping the breeding of “inferior humans,” or are we to assume that you are lying for Jesus yet again?

That was the paragraph that the other poster (and Wiker) just quoted. Also Darwin's declaration (again from Descent of Man) that it was an act of ignorance for man "to allow his worst animals to breed." Combined with the famous Eliminate-The-Negro paragraph from the same book, that's all the smokin' guns you need. The Descent Of Man is available online if you need to check things for yourself. FL :)

And you still haven't explained how (mis)reading and lying about Darwin leads one to plagiarize Martin Luther, either.

FL claimed "And remember, Darwin already stated exactly which set of inferior humans was only One-Pee-Pee away from the gorillas."

Please state where Darwin said or wrote this, exactly. I think you misread Darwin. I certainly don't think he would have used the babyish word "One-Pee-Pee".

In any case, evolution itself is not racist and is not discredited by racist associations. You make us laugh when you attempt to connect Hitler with Darwin, just as Ben Stine did in the rediculous EXPELLED movie. Eugenics itself is not racist, since genetic defects can affect any race and preventing people with genetic defects from reproducing would not discriminate against blacks, since having dark skin is not a defect, but an adaption to excessive sunlight.

As long as someone decided to play the Hitler card, let's take a look at that.

First of all, to return to the original point: As long as the creationists do not deny "micro"evolution, evolution within "mankind", then any racism that follows from micro-evolution applies at least as much to creationism.

I suggest that readers of this blog take a look at this book, which effectively refutes the charge that any of those various social/political movements of the early 20th century relied on Darwin. This is because at that particular time, there were few people who relied on Darwin:

Bowler, Peter J.
The non-Darwinian revolution : reinterpreting a historical myth
Baltimore : Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988

With regards to the Nazis, one can look at the precursors of the Nazis, for example, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, in his "Foundations of the Nineteenth Century" referred to "A manifestly unsound system like that of Darwin". Or one can search through Hitler's "Table Talk" and find stuff like this:

"Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey - assuming that this transformation really took place."

Or this from "Mein Kampf":

"Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law - one may call it an iron law of Nature - which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind."

Or you can read about Himmler's opinions:

Heather Pringle 
The Master Plan: Himmler's Scholars and the Holocaust 
New York: Hyperion, 2006

"... Himmler dismissed outright, for example, the current notion that the human race was closely related to primates. He was also outraged by an idea proposed by another German researcher that the Cro-Magnon arose from the Neanderthal. To Himmler, both these hypotheses were "scientifically 
totally false." They were also "quite insulting to humans.""

You can also read about how, on at least one occasion, the Nazis included pro-Darwinian books among those to be burned.

Of course, the Nazis did accept some science. They referred favorably to Pasteur, Mendel, and Koch. My stomach turns to see the vile abuses of their science that the Nazis claimed in support of their policies. Hitler compared himself to Koch. But, even though the Nazis did actually abuse these scientists, it does not detract from their standing. They are not responsible for their abuse by the Nazis. Yet, they didn't even attempt to claim Darwin on their side.

Now, I want to make it clear that I am not putting any blame on creationism for the Nazis. No more than I am blaming Pasteur, Mendel, and Koch.

I see that my original comment can easily be read to mean the opposite of what I meant to say, but since no one has called me on it, I guess it came through OK.

What about Von Braun and the V2?

Rocket science is evil! EEEEVILL!! Don't believe it!!

For some reason I believe this "evolutionists are racist" crap is cynical. I really don't believe that creationists actually believe that this is true. Also, has there really been a shortage of racist Christians (past or present) to sully what Christianity is supposed to stand for? I don't think so.

FL said:

If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. [emphasis mine]

Thanks for supplying the highlighted portion of Darwin's statement. Your problem is that it doesn't change the meaning of the paragraph as quoted by Benjamin Wiker at all. I've read those "two paragraphs" Darwin mentioned, containing those "various checks". But what struck me is how Darwin not only approves of THOSE aforementioned checks as as means of stopping the target populations' breeding, but notice how Darwin even calls for "Others As Yet Unknown" to do the job. In other words, ANYTHING -- both the already known "checks" and even those unknown to Darwin -- to jam up the inferior-humans so "the better class of men" will continue to have their natural-selection-upward-progress. That's what Darwin called for.

Dave Luckett said: But those are not really the words of yours that people are responding to, and it's no use coming the innocent like that. "Whatever TOE props think of their scientific myth...", for instance. It ain't no myth, steve. It's the best explanation for the diversity of life. It's supported by mountains of evidence that many of the posters here have spent long periods studying, testing, adding to and applying. By calling it that, you are calling them fools or ignorant or credulous. For some odd reason, they resent that. Hell, I do too, and I haven't got their background. Or these words: "I sure do hope for the sake of humanity that ID will help put the TOE genie back in its bottle and let it float out to sea for the dolphins to play a bit ‘a water polo." It won't fit back into any bottle, steve. It won't be thrown overboard by remarks like that. Being scornfully dismissive just doesn't cut it. It only makes you look stupid. It makes you sound as though you don't think evidence matters, because you don't actually mention any, but you've made up your mind anyway. To get rid of the Theory of Evolution is conceptually simple, though. Just find some definite evidence against it, stuff that can be tested and verified. A Cambrian rabbit, maybe, or any definitely anomolous fossil of proven provenance. Mind, it has to be available for testing and investigation, not some rumour you or somebody else picked up on the internet. Some life-form that can be studied closely but can't be related to other life-forms in a nested hierarchy. Some real hole you can find in the facts about genetics. Or some structure that can't be evolved. (Warning - that last one's been tried a lot, and has cracked up every time. Evolution is able to do a lot more than you'd think.) But you can't get rid of facts without facts, steve. Evidence. Show some. Otherwise, you sound like a chump, and you'll get treated as one. Show some evidence. Only you can't do that, steve, because there is no such evidence. Not a scrap, not a scintilla, not a grain. It all points the other way. We evolved from earlier forms, steve, and so did every other living thing. That's the fact. Find some different facts - real ones - and you get a Nobel Prize. Ignore the ones we have, or sneer cluelessly at them, and you sound like an ignoramus. Your choice. But don't get all surprised when people react accordingly.

No one has conclusively shown evolution to be more than a principle underlying variation in a population.

steve said: People like Dembski, Behe, Meyers et al are working over the evolution paradigm rather handily.

The vitriol we see on this and other blogs are telling.

The evidence you sight is an interpretation (cladistics, homology, fossile record) of data. There is no empirical evidence to support it. Only inference. Inference is soft science. No one has conclusively shown evolution to be more than a principle underlying variation in a population. The MES seeks to 'puff' up the status of this principle, adding bells and whistles that mislead the novice into attaching credence to the idea of macro-evolution. Evolution as a principle of variation is not in dispute. Evolution as an engine of biological development is very much in dispute. ID is a bridge that is helping scientists cross over from the MES into new territory. In the end, ND will pass away, and I predict ID will be transformed and refined with even more rigourous scientific studies. It is still in its infancy. Heck, its been only been some 20+ years; ND has been at it for 150. Give ID a few more years and see what happens.

I think you all understand the implications. That's why you can dish it out but can't take it. Look at the derision, ridicule that goes on here, and at anti-evolution, pharangyla, etc. I throw a jab, and its "hey, wait a minute? you cant do that?" Why not? Dun feel all that pretty, does it?

There's a host of new ideas out there.

Whether ID as it is now continues really doesn't matter. What does matter is that it helps drives new idea into the public domain, challenges the current consensus, and damned if we are gonna let vested interests block the dissemination of these new ideas jus' cuz grant money is at stake, or reputations are on the line, or someone's entrenched philosophical foundation might possibly be washed away.

Its a brand new day, and we all all the better for it!

steve said: If only that were true. People like Dembski, Behe, Meyers et al are working over the evolution paradigm rather handily.

The vitriol we see on this and other blogs are telling.

steve said: The evidence you sight is an interpretation (cladistics, homology, fossile record) of data.

How was it that this article got posted up here in the first place?

I remember wondering about that when I saw it on google reader. It seems far less developed than the usual quality I expect to see here on PT. I would have liked to have seen the author take it a bit further; it seemed both unfocused and unsupported. (Although the lack of support could have simply been because his topic wasn't very well-defined.)

John Kwok said: Fafarman is almost as much a lunatic as his idol Bill Dembski or a certain MN evolutionary developmental biologist who shall remain nameless. I've had the misfortune of contending with him too in the past, elsewhere online:

Aaron said: How was it that this article got posted up here in the first place? I remember wondering about that when I saw it on google reader. It seems far less developed than the usual quality I expect to see here on PT. I would have liked to have seen the author take it a bit further; it seemed both unfocused and unsupported. (Although the lack of support could have simply been because his topic wasn't very well-defined.)

Darwinism BEGINS by rejecting the Genesis Creator; THEN it relies on pre-existing racism to answer a human origin question that did not exist until the Genesis Creator was rejected. The racist mind of Charles Darwin, after rejecting God as Creator, suddenly saw a similarity between apes in the London zoo and dark skinned men that he had encountered on the five year Beagle voyage (Edward Larson, "Evolution: The History Of A Remarkable Theory" 2004:66-67).

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=CUL-DAR122.-&pageseq=69

Charles Darwin:

"Let man visit Ourang-outang in domestication, hear expressive whine, see its intelligence when spoken [to], as if it understood every word said — see its affection to those it knows, — see its passion & rage, sulkiness & very extreme of despair; let him look at savage, roasting his parent, naked, artless, not improving, yet improvable, and then let him dare to boast of his proud preeminence. — Not understanding language of Fuegian puts on par with monkeys" (Notebook C, 1838).

As we can see, Darwinism begins with a racist observation.

MIT Professor Huston Smith:

"In 1919 the Brooklyn Zoo exhibited an African American caged alongside chimpanzees and gorillas" ("Why Religion Matters" 2001:17).

37 years after Darwin had died, Darwinists WERE STILL basing human evolution on gutter racism, and we were told human evolution was based on evidence.

Ray

mplavcan said:

mrg said: Please do not feed the troll!

I disagree. Kan Hamm pounds this message home on a weekly basis. The troll here reflects a typical creationist "argument."

Darwin biographers Adrian Desmond & James Moore:

"'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start - Darwinism was invented to explain human society" ("Darwin" 1991:10).

"Commonweal" magazine, March 9, 2007

"The Not-So-Gentle GIANT Selling & Sanitizing Darwin" by Peter Quinn.

In 1912, Major Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin) addressed the First International Congress of Eugenics in London, before "racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world." Leonard Darwin believed eugenics would be "a substitute for religion" and conveyed that his father agreed that society should encourage breeding among its best and "prevent it among
the worst" (page 9).

Darwin's son equates to the ultimate primary source since he grew up on his Dad's knee.

Ray

Ray Martinez said: Darwin biographers Adrian Desmond & James Moore: "'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start - Darwinism was invented to explain human society" ("Darwin" 1991:10). "Commonweal" magazine, March 9, 2007 "The Not-So-Gentle GIANT Selling & Sanitizing Darwin" by Peter Quinn. In 1912, Major Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin) addressed the First International Congress of Eugenics in London, before "racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world." Leonard Darwin believed eugenics would be "a substitute for religion" and conveyed that his father agreed that society should encourage breeding among its best and "prevent it among the worst" (page 9). Darwin's son equates to the ultimate primary source since he grew up on his Dad's knee. Ray

"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer(1959):

After the attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler failed in 1944 an internal bloodbath followed. Peter Yorck was one among many that were arrested in the conspiracy. After being tortured and brought before one of Hitler's kangaroo courts - "the People's Court" - presided over by ex-Bolshevik sadist turned Nazi sadist, Ronald Freisler, he was demanded upon to tell the court why he refused to join the Nazi Party.

Yorck replied: "....the totalitarian claim of the State on the individual which forces him to renounce his moral and religious obligations to God."

Hours later piano wire was fastened around his neck and he was hoisted into the air on a meat hook (page 1071).

"The Third Reich In Power" by Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans (2005):

"In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi Students' League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed Christian.' Christianity he said, 'promotes the dissolution of racial ties and of the national racial community....We must repudiate the Old and the New Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive.
For us there is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else'" (page 250).

"The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally:

'We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth....For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic. I go with the SA through thin and thick'

Not the cross they sang, but 'the swastika is redemption on earth.'" (pages 250-51).

"A more consistently paganist figure in the Nazi elite was the Party's agricultural expert Richard Walther Darre, whose ideology of 'blood and soil' made such a powerful impression on Heinrich Himmler....Himmler in his turn abandoned his early Christian faith under Darre's influence. In Himmler's plans for the SS after 1933....As an SS plan put it in 1937: 'We live in the age of the final
confrontation with Christianity. It is part of the mission of the SS to give the German people over the next fifty years the non-Christian ideological foundations for a way of life appropriate to their own character.'....The families of SS men were ordered by Himmler not to celebrate Christmas....
Christianity, Himmler was to declare on 9 June 1942, was 'the greatest of plagues'" (pages 251-52).

Martin Bormann is described as "the energetic and strongly anti-Christian head of Rudolf Hess's office...."

"....the Nazi Party was on the way to severing all its ties with organized Christianity by the end of the 1930s" (pages 252-53).

"Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals" (page 259).

"Hitler 1936 - 1945: Nemesis" by Ian Kershaw (2000):

"Hitler's impatience with the Churches prompted frequent outbursts of hostility. In early 1937, he was declaring that 'Christianity was ripe for destruction'....and that the Churches must yield to the primacy of the state, railing against any compromise with 'the most horrible institution imaginable'" (pages 39-40).

"The Third Reich" by Michael Burleigh (2000):

"Nazi assaults on the clergy and Christianity were so crude - up to and including smearing excrement on altars and Chuch doors...." (page 261).

Ray

You honestly think you can reason with someone who thinks that antibiotic resistant bacteria and lactose tolerance in humans are Masonic conspiracies?

Good luck.

John Kwok said: Sorry Ray, but these are substantial distortions of Darwin's thinking:

Ray Martinez said: Darwin biographers Adrian Desmond & James Moore: "'Social Darwinism' is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start - Darwinism was invented to explain human society" ("Darwin" 1991:10). "Commonweal" magazine, March 9, 2007 "The Not-So-Gentle GIANT Selling & Sanitizing Darwin" by Peter Quinn. In 1912, Major Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin) addressed the First International Congress of Eugenics in London, before "racial biologists from Germany, the United States, and other parts of the world." Leonard Darwin believed eugenics would be "a substitute for religion" and conveyed that his father agreed that society should encourage breeding among its best and "prevent it among the worst" (page 9). Darwin's son equates to the ultimate primary source since he grew up on his Dad's knee. Ray

Darwin was quite liberal, whose causes included opposition to slavery and the slave trade. "Social Darwinism" was a philosophy developed by philosopher and social scientist Herbert Spencer, and an idea, whose central tenet, "Survival of the Fittest" was acknowledged, without ample enthusiasm, by Darwin in later editions of the "Origin of Species". As for his son Leonard, I strongly suspect that Darwin would have objected strenuously to his racist thinking. In his "Rough Guide to Evolution" - which has just been published - microbiologist Mark Pallen has set the record straight with regards to Darwiin's thinking and its relationships both to Spencer's and his son's thought.

You know, it's observations like the one Jim Foley made here that make me wonder weather this whole creationist/evolutionist dichotomy is misleading. The issue seems to me more about how much evolutionry processes or history one is willing to accept. When I read articles in Creation magazine, I'm amazed at how much evolution they try to cram into their biblical timeline. Writers have suggested, for example, that galapagos finches and big cats probably descended from a single pair on Noah's ark a few thousand years ago - that calls fro some pretty rapid evolution! For Ken Ham, it seems as though the old idea of a "fixed, immutable" species has been replaced by speciation and adaptive radiation from a fixed "kind", and all influenced by natural selection acting upon variation. I think we could call him a theistic evolutionist! What creationists really seem to have an issue with is evolutionary history, particularly common descent of humans with other extant organisms. Of course YECs may label anything that conflicts with their interpretation of the bible, weather it's in biology, cosmology or geology, as "evolutionary". Perhaps the real dichotomy here is what side you take in the culture wars over the teaching of evoluiton. The creationist/IDist side includes people of such diverse views as Michael Behe and Duane Gish (I understand CreationWiki refers to Behe as a "theistic evolutionist" a label I'm sure he resents).
Just a side note, I don't see whay we're making such a big deal about Darwin's social views, they shouldn't have any bearing on the scientific validity of modern evolutionary biology, or weather or not modern evolutionists should be racist.

Trying to get back to the issue that started off this discussion:

"Creationism is just as racist as evolution"

Creationism admits - even insists upon - the reality of evolution within a "kind". Just look for references to "baramin", or "micro-evolution"&"creationism". This means that creationism agrees with evolution as far as what happens within "mankind". Creationism cannot put any more distance from racism than can evolutionary biology.

But it's not even as pleasant as that, for creationism.

For one of the main complaints from creationism against evolution is that, supposedly, natural selection only leads to deterioration. That is to say that creationism (if it were being consistent) would say that humans, being subject to micro-evolution, must be deteriorating, unless there is constant guidance to our reproduction.

Not only is evolution no more racist than is creationism. Evolution has less reason to be racist than does creationism.

There are some other points that could be brought up, but let's just talk for a while about this one issue: Natural selection versus purposeful, intelligent selection in regards to racism.

I draw attention to the parenthetical comment, "if it were being consistent". I am not claiming that creationists are racists. After all, creationism does not have a consistent theory of creationism, there are no guidelines for drawing consequences from creationism, so they needn't be consistent with their premises, and therefore need not be racists.

Of course, there were enough anti-evolutionists and anti-darwinists who were genuine racists, but that has no more implication for creationism than does the fact that some genuine racists appealed to the genetics of Mendel, or the germ theory of Pasteur and Koch.

But, if creationists were being consistent, and if the point of supposed racist consequences were a legitimate issue, then creationism not only would be "just as racist", but would be "more racist".

Stanton said: You honestly think you can reason with someone who thinks that antibiotic resistant bacteria and lactose tolerance in humans are Masonic conspiracies? Good luck.

Sorry Ray, but as I just noted to Stanton, you are doing a great impersonation of Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer, who, alas, is a fellow Brunonian. David is so hung up on trying to connect the dots between Darwin and Hitler that he once referred to me on his online DI blog as an "obsessed Darwin lover". If anyone is "obsessed", I submit that it's you and David for espousing such breathtaking inanity as trying to put the blame on Darwin for Hitler.

John Kwok said: Sorry Ray, but as I just noted to Stanton, you are doing a great impersonation of Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer, who, alas, is a fellow Brunonian. David is so hung up on trying to connect the dots between Darwin and Hitler that he once referred to me on his online DI blog as an "obsessed Darwin lover". If anyone is "obsessed", I submit that it's you and David for espousing such breathtaking inanity as trying to put the blame on Darwin for Hitler.

Ray Martinez said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Ray, but as I just noted to Stanton, you are doing a great impersonation of Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer, who, alas, is a fellow Brunonian. David is so hung up on trying to connect the dots between Darwin and Hitler that he once referred to me on his online DI blog as an "obsessed Darwin lover". If anyone is "obsessed", I submit that it's you and David for espousing such breathtaking inanity as trying to put the blame on Darwin for Hitler.

Nobody actually expects Darwinists to acknowledge the round earth facts that Hitler did what he did because he believed God did not exist based on Darwin. Those who have no emotional attachment to evolution or those who do not have their livelihoods at stake have no problem accepting the self-evident facts produced by scholarship. If Darwinists would lie about these uncomplicated facts and deny them then they would surely lie about complicated scientific evidence. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives. Darwinists are recognized to be liars. Ray

Stanton said: If Hitler was an atheist, then why did he tell his general, one Gerhard Engel, "“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”? And if Hitler was so sure there was no God, then why did he also offer the explanation “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” in Mein Kampf? Why would an alleged Godless atheist insist on having Gott Mitt Uns inscribed on every beltbuckle of every German soldier?

Ray Martinez said:

John Kwok said: Sorry Ray, but as I just noted to Stanton, you are doing a great impersonation of Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer, who, alas, is a fellow Brunonian. David is so hung up on trying to connect the dots between Darwin and Hitler that he once referred to me on his online DI blog as an "obsessed Darwin lover". If anyone is "obsessed", I submit that it's you and David for espousing such breathtaking inanity as trying to put the blame on Darwin for Hitler.

Nobody actually expects Darwinists to acknowledge the round earth facts that Hitler did what he did because he believed God did not exist based on Darwin. Those who have no emotional attachment to evolution or those who do not have their livelihoods at stake have no problem accepting the self-evident facts produced by scholarship. If Darwinists would lie about these uncomplicated facts and deny them then they would surely lie about complicated scientific evidence. This is why anti-evolutionism thrives. Darwinists are recognized to be liars. Ray

John Kwok said: Stanton, These are excellent points, but they're not going to persuade a delusional nut like Ray Martinez

Stanton said: If Hitler was an atheist, then why did he tell his general, one Gerhard Engel, "“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”? And if Hitler was so sure there was no God, then why did he also offer the explanation “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” in Mein Kampf?

Stanton said: Why would an alleged Godless atheist insist on having Gott Mitt Uns inscribed on every beltbuckle of every German soldier?

Ray Martinez said:

Stanton said: If Hitler was an atheist, then why did he tell his general, one Gerhard Engel, "“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”? And if Hitler was so sure there was no God, then why did he also offer the explanation “by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord” in Mein Kampf?

Two good questions and now the answers: BOTH quotes were spoken BEFORE Hitler rose to power. Since Germany was a Christian nation he played the role of a double agent (= liar). Once he obtained power, though, as we all know, Hitler showed his true colors. Another good answer is to point out that those who say Hitler was a Christian based "on what he said" presuppose Hitler was telling the truth and that these persons believe Hitler.

Stanton said: Why would an alleged Godless atheist insist on having Gott Mitt Uns inscribed on every beltbuckle of every German soldier?

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/03/creationism-is.html#comment-181429 “The Third Reich In Power” by Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans (2005): “Nazism’s use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance. ‘Hitler’s studied usurpation of religious functions,’ as one historian has written, ‘was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.’ The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals” (page 259). Ray

It's impossible, in most cases, to know what Hitler really thought, except that he was subject to a wide variety of phobias and compulsions, powered by what appears to be displacement symbiology - that is, in his mind, things stood for other things to an extent that rendered his connections to reality tenuous. The actual sources of those connections will mostly remain a mystery - the most likely places to look are in his childhood. But one thing can be said: Hitler had no knowledge whatsoever of Darwin's actual work, and no interest whatsoever in it. His few references to evolutionary biology are naive and generally inaccurate. He used it, as he used everything else in his mental universe, to buttress his own fractured and deeply compromised view of reality. He used religion for the same purpose, in exactly the same way.

Hitler functioned because the symbols he used for reality could actually be co-opted into the politics of his day and given the values he gave them. Nietzche could be, as Nietzche himself predicted. Wagner could be - easily. History - at least popular history - could be. The Church could be. Antisemitism could be. Evolutionary biology could be. All with the compromises inherent in such a co-option, of course. We are not dealing with reality in any of these cases, but with the internal landscapes of one seriously deranged mind. But the fit with a seriously deranged political situation - and Germany in the early thirties was that - was good. Good enough to bring success. And destruction, of course, because actual reality fit Hitler's thought rather poorly, but that came later.

The point is this: it is ultimately irrelevant what Hitler thought about evolution (but that was very little), just as it is irrelevant what he thought about Christianity, or the philosophy of Nietzche, or twentieth-century painting. His thought about all of these, and many other subjects, was a demented caricature of what they really were, called forth by his overriding psychopathic needs. They were means to an end, no more. It is no more use railing at Hitler's notion of evolutionary biology than it is railing at his take on Christianity. Neither had anything to do with what it actually was.

Dave Luckett said: His few references to evolutionary biology are naive and generally inaccurate.

TomS said: I haven't read a whole lot of what Hitler had to say about evolutionary biology. Could someone fill us in on what he did say about it?....

Dave Luckett said: (Put clothespeg on nose first, this stuff stinks):

Dave Luckett said: Hitler apparently never read Darwin, and seems to have hardly been aware of his existence. His racist ideas - which were undoubtedly the main stock of what passed for his thought - appear to have been picked up from scabrous ranters and pamphleteers in Vienna, shortly before WWI. Oddly, he doesn't seem to have had such views earlier - his letter thanking a Jewish physician for his care of his mother, is still extant. But whereever he got those views, and when, and why, he didn't get them from evolutionary biology.

Dave Lovell said: Whether or not Hitler read Darwin is only an issue to the likes of Ray and FL. Even if Hitler had personally written "On the Origin of Species", it would not be any less valid as a scientific Theory. Only those who see Darwin as the Prophet of a competing theology called "Darwinism" can see any merit in seeking to discredit Him by the actions of his "Disciples".

Dave Lovell said: Whether or not Hitler read Darwin is only an issue to the likes of Ray and FL. Even if Hitler had personally written "On the Origin of Species", it would not be any less valid as a scientific Theory. Only those who see Darwin as the Prophet of a competing theology called "Darwinism" can see any merit in seeking to discredit Him by the actions of his "Disciples".

Dave Luckett said: He's got his hands over his eyes and his fingers in his ears and he's going lalala for all he's worth.

gmv said: Naturalism is also an axiom that many accept, again without the possibility of ultimate proof of its validity as a worldview.

gmv:

It's called methodological naturalism for a reason. It's not a "worldview", it's a method for finding out how things work. Whether God created said things or not does not matter as far as how they work.

Myers and Miller both understand the basic mechanisms of biology, but they are polar opposites as far as theology goes. Again, it does not matter. Get it?

gmv said: We all have our axioms and presuppositions from which we base our worldview. Theism is an axiom that no one can prove wrong. Naturalism is also an axiom that many accept, again without the possibility of ultimate proof of its validity as a worldview. The difficult part is putting aside those presuppositions to try and really see the other person's point of view, rather than just name-calling, which seems to proliferate here.

Stanton said: Likewise, a car repair specialist who tells you that your car has ceased functioning due to a cracked generator pulley is using methodological naturalism, whereas a car repair specialist who tells you that your car has ceased functioning due to an infestation of magical, invisible car gremlins that only he and his associates can see is not using methodological naturalism.

Either way, never trust a repair shop that specializes in "gremlin exorcisms"

Just refrain from feeding Gizmo after midnight...

Henry J said: Just refrain from feeding Gizmo after midnight...

gmv said: Funny, that seems to describe quite a few of the people that frequent here. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? We all have our axioms and presuppositions from which we base our worldview. Theism is an axiom that no one can prove wrong. Naturalism is also an axiom that many accept, again without the possibility of ultimate proof of its validity as a worldview. The difficult part is putting aside those presuppositions to try and really see the other person's point of view, rather than just name-calling, which seems to proliferate here.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: Christianity, for example. Islam, for another. These two worldviews (not axioms, dimwit) make testable statements. Both have been proven to be wrong. Do try to keep up.

Stanton said: ...even though aforementioned holy figures are extensively quoted as saying that committing evil and "sin" in their names is repugnant and unforgivable?

gmv said: Theism is an axiom that no one can prove wrong. Naturalism is also an axiom that many accept, again without the possibility of ultimate proof of its validity as a worldview. The difficult part is putting aside those presuppositions to try and really see the other person's point of view, rather than just name-calling, which seems to proliferate here.

We do not accept Evolution within kinds....we accept VARIATION within kinds. You are equivocating the word, you should definitely know better than that if you are a Scientist.

Natural Selection was invented by Edward Blythe, a Young Earth Creation Scientist, Charles Darwin plagiarized his thoughts and thrust them illogically into into the ancient Greek Philosopher, Anaximander's paradigm of Evolution. Little did he realize that Natural Selection did not cohere with Evolution, Scientists of this present day such as Jonathan Sarfati have been able to spot that error, as have I.

Dr. Lewis said: We do not accept Evolution within kinds....we accept VARIATION within kinds.

Natural Selection was invented by Edward Blythe,

Little did he realize that Natural Selection did not cohere with Evolution,

Dr. Lewis said: We do not accept Evolution within kinds....we accept VARIATION within kinds. You are equivocating the word, you should definitely know better than that if you are a Scientist.

Natural Selection was invented by Edward Blythe, a Young Earth Creation Scientist, Charles Darwin plagiarized his thoughts and thrust them illogically into into the ancient Greek Philosopher, Anaximander's paradigm of Evolution. Little did he realize that Natural Selection did not cohere with Evolution, Scientists of this present day such as Jonathan Sarfati have been able to spot that error, as have I.

Dr. Lewis said: We do not accept Evolution within kinds....we accept VARIATION within kinds. You are equivocating the word, you should definitely know better than that if you are a Scientist.

Evolution can be used in the sense of change in a species by natural selection. This is often referred to as microevolution and is accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good observational science.

— AIG

I guess this is all just semantics really. "Evolution" can have many meanings depending on who's using the word.

Seriously I have to ask 1 thing. Who really cares what is racist and what is not anymore. Why is everyone so concentrated on racism. Look if everyone would just completly drop the thought of racism and shut up because some person with a dif colored skin stole their job then chats like these would never need to happen.

This isn't just about the worldviews this is about a personal matter thats never going to change enless everyone drops it together. Personally i'm atheist. But I'm not going to walk into a church and yell at them saying that their religion is wrong. I will however defend my beliefs if I am made to do so. The more everyone argues over these things the more we want to come up with to defend our own beliefs. If I believe ANYTHING from the bible it's the fact that we have a choice. It's their opinion and honestly if they want to say certain things are racist usually it's because they're racist and trying to hide it by pointing out other peoples flaws.