Darwin and Racism

I came across this article today published by CBN. Paul Strand takes a look at the extremely racist underpinnings of historic Darwinism and it's consequences in society over the past century and a half. From the article:

Darwin's book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, revealed him as what John West calls "a virulent racist."

"He did write extensively about how evolution by natural selection creates unequal races, and that in the evolutionary scheme of things, blacks are the closest to apes," he explained. West is the author of Darwin Day in America.

"It's not just residual racism," he added. "He's using his scientific theory as a justification for racism and countless scientists after Darwin latched on to that."

Read the article - "Confronting Evolution's Racists Roots"

Another resource I recommend is the book Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots, by Ken Ham and Charles Ware. This work has been highly criticized and slandered by countless reviewers (see Amazon.com), but what would you expect? They document the ugly legacy of evolutionary racism and genocide - an aspect of Darwinism which many modern scientists seek to conceal.

Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots

A few thoughts and excerpts from the book:

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” - Stephen Jay Gould, a leading evolutionist (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977)

Jim Fletcher, upon visiting the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., wrote:

“The railroad car, once you realize what it represents, forces you in...The odd smell - which many visitors say must be the smell of death - can’t be scrubbed away. It shouldn’t be, for it reminds our senses in a visceral way of what happens when men leave God, and malevolent ideas go unchallenged....When Adolph Hitler looked for a ”final solution“ for what he called the ”Jewish problem“ - the fact of the Jews’ existence - he had only to recall what scientists like Ernest Haeckel and liberal theologians embraced: that a purposeless process, known as evolution, had generated all of life’s complexity, including civilization itself. It had done so through a pitiless procedure of the strong eliminating the weak. As the influence of this idea spread, the Bible was increasingly taught as myth.” (from Darwin’s Plantation, pg. 23-4)

Evolutionary thought regarding the origin of races, and the timescale of human development, was lived out in men like Hitler, and produced racial genocide such as that which occurred in Australia. Gathering "specimens" (especially fresh ones) was quite lucrative and highly valued by science because it provided evidence for “missing links.” Grave robbing and murder were rampant. The British museum received somewhere around 10,000 specimens, and today the Smithsonian holds the remains of over 15,000 individuals.

"Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney for 20 years starting in 1874, was particularly heavily involved. He published a booklet for the museum that gave instructions not only on how to rob graves, but also on how to plug bullet wounds from freshly killed "specimens." Many freelance collectors worked under his guidance. For example, four weeks after Ramsay had requested skulls of Bungee Blacks, a keen young scientist sent him two of them, announcing, "The last of their tribe, had just been shot." (Darwin’s Plantation, pg. 25)

"Today, Darwinism and evolutionary thinking also enable ordinary, respectable professionals - otherwise dedicated to the saving of life - to justify their involvement in the slaughter of millions of unborn human beings, who (like the Aborigines of earlier Darwinian thinking) are also deemed “not yet fully human." (Darwin’s Plantation, pg. 26)

All of this is shocking and horrifying, but we must understand that without God, man truly is reduced to a beastly state, and will try to justify brutality under the guise of "science" and "progress."

In a future post, we will examine some of Darwin's personal views regarding slavery (commonly cited as evidence that evolution is not an inherently "racist" worldview), the perception of interracial marriage in the early 1900's, and the Biblical view of race.

The "Missing Link"

In this episode of Generations, Creationist radio host Kevin Swanson comments on "Ida," the supposed "missing link" which was unveiled recently, (and which the media has popularized as our "great great aunt") as well as a number of other issues regarding evolution.

Finally Found – The Missing Link!

What it Would Take for a Rational Person to Believe in Evolution

Blog Redesign in the Works

Howdy folks. This is just a heads-up that Confronting Darwin is ready for a redesign. The light text against the black background is difficult to read, and I want to spruce the general design a bit. So here's a sneak-peek at one of my mockups.


Now I just need to get this into HTML format to use as a template...

The Work of His Fingers

Before the mountains were born
Or You gave birth to the earth and the world,
Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.

~Psalm 90:2

I intend to post some commentary and images from my trip to Grand Canyon at some point. For now, I hope you enjoy the image. It's a truly spectacular sight.

What do we do with the environment?

Attenborough blames Genesis for ecological devastation

"The influence of the book of Genesis, which says, "The Lord God said 'go forth and multiply' to Adam and Eve, and that the natural world is there for you to dominate. You have dominion over the animals and plants of the world." And that basic notion, that the world is there for us, and that if it doesn’t act to serve our purposes it is dispensable--that has produced the devastation of vast areas of the earth’s surface. Of course, this is a great simplification. But that’s why Darwinism and the fact of evolution is of great importance, because it is that attitude [Creationism] which has led to the devastation of so much, and is why we’re in the situation that we’re in." - David Attenborough

A Biblical view of environmental stewardship

First of all, I want to quote what God actually said in Genesis (since Attenborough's paraphrase was less-than-accurate).

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. - Genesis 1:26-30

For the sake of time (mine and yours) I will briefly summarize the issue in four bullet points, addressing the macro-level arguments from a Creationist, Christian perspective. I will be referencing a Protestant position paper on the issue, published by the Acton Institute in their 2007 release, Environmental Stewardship in the Judeo-Christian Tradition, which I believe to be a succinct, solid overview of the Christian position on environmental stewardship.

I. Biblical Stewardship: Conditions and Qualifications

• "Two groups of interrelated conditions are necessary for responsible stewardship. In one group are conditions related to the freedom that allows people to use and exchange the fruits of their labor for mutual benefit (Matt. 20:13—15). These conditions–knowledge, righteousness, and dominion–provide an arena for the working out of the image of God in the human person. In another group are conditions related to responsibility, especially to the existence of a legal framework that holds people accountable for harm they may cause to others (Rom. 13:1—7; Exod. 21:28—36; 22:5—6). These two sets of conditions provide the safeguards necessitated by human sinfulness. Both sets are essential to responsible stewardship; neither may be permitted to crowd out the other, and each must be understood in light of both the image of God and the sinfulness of man."

• Thus we are not free to do whatever we please with God's creation (including our own bodies by the way), but are restrained in our actions by the principles of righteousness and responsibility laid forth in His Word, and are accountable to the sanctions and authority of His Law. Dominion is therefore not the mindset that "if [the earth] doesn’t act to serve our purposes it is dispensable." It is the solemn obligation laid on humanity to care for the earth in a manner consistent with the created order.

II. We are "Created in His Image"

• Mankind is NOT a product of natural processes (a.k.a. “mother earth”).
  

• The predominant view today is one where man - as a "child of nature" - must necessarily subordinate himself to "mother earth," and assume an equal or inferior position to the natural world around him. So, if an endangered field mouse and a farmer happen to occupy and use the same plot of land, the farmer automatically gets the boot.
  

• According to Genesis man and woman were given a privileged status in Creation, and were commanded by God to exercise stewardship and dominion. The Lord said, "Rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

• This brings us to what is commonly called the "Creator / Creature distinction." God is God, and we are His creatures and subject to His rule. In our capacity as stewards, we are to act as responsible agents of His benevolent rule, not autonomous destroyers of His good gifts.
  

• Having established the clear Biblical hierarchy of the created order (God - man - natural world), let's make sure we have our priorities straight. As we said above, we do not advocate the subordination of man to the earth (i.e. the field mouse analogy), but instead place first priority on human well-being. “The quest for the humane treatment of beasts by lowering people to the level of animals leads only to the beastly treatment of humans.” By keeping mankind in his Biblical role as steward, we not only promote the betterment of society, the freedom for economic growth, and the health of the environment, but we stridently oppose the environmental slavery which drives so many countries (especially third-world countries) in the exact opposite direction.
  

III. Biblical Checks and Balances

• “People, alone among creatures on earth, have both the rationality and the moral capacity to exercise stewardship, to be accountable for their choices, to take responsibility for caring not only for themselves but also for other creatures. To reject human stewardship is to embrace, by default, no stewardship.”

• Government is not to usurp the responsibility of individuals to exercise stewardship - it exists to restrain evil and to encourage and reinforce righteousness. When people become enslaved to the natural world by tyrannical governmental measures, free market economies become impossible, innovation is stifled and poverty prevails (i.e. third-world countries are sacrificed as a result of stringent environmental measures imposed by wealthy nations)

• "Our stewardship under God implies that we are morally accountable to him for treating creation in a manner that best serves the objectives of the kingdom of God; but both moral accountability and dominion over the earth depend on the freedom to choose. The exercise of these virtues and this calling, therefore, require that we act in an arena of considerable freedom–not unrestricted license, but freedom exercised within the boundaries of God’s moral law revealed in Scripture and in the human conscience (Exod. 20:1—17; Deut. 5:6—21; Rom. 2:14—15)."

IV. Conclusion

• “Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace International, said in an interview in the New Scientist in December 1999, "The environmental movement abandoned science and logic somewhere in the mid-1980s\... political activists were using environmental rhetoric to cover up agendas that had more to do with class warfare and anti-corporatism than with the actual science...." What we have said above indicates that Moore was right in his critique of the movement to which he made such an important early contribution. Too often, modern environmentalism has become anti-human, anti-freedom, anti-economic development, and anti-reason. It is time to reverse this trend.” [emphasis added]
  

• “On the basis of a biblical worldview and ethics, as well as of sound science, economics, and public policy principles, we believe sound environmental stewardship celebrates and promotes human life, freedom, and economic development as compatible with, even essential for, the good of the whole environment. While we do not rule out all collective action, we believe market mechanisms are frequently better means, in both principle and practice, to environmental protection. They are less likely to erode important human freedoms and more likely to be cost-effective and successful in achieving their aims. While we understand that passions may energize in the pursuit of sound environmental policy, we also believe that reason, coupled with a commitment to "do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with … God" (Mic. 6:8), must ultimately guide environmental policy."
  

The Devolution of Law

"Evolution has affected the thinking of our culture at every level: theology, family life, art, business, law, and public policy. Even Christians have become afraid of the Bible in some of the most practical ways, and as a result, our families are falling apart. This is not a day for timidity and complacency. In this message, Doug Phillips explains how the Word of God gives answers to every area of life, including law, how Christians may identify evolutionary assumptions that have crept into our way of thinking, and how they may powerfully give an answer to the lies of cultural evolutionists."

Evolution...Superfluous to Practical Science

“Most [biologists] can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Wilkins, evolutionary biologist (as quoted in ICR's article "Obama Pushes for Expansion of Science and Technology" by Randy J. Guliuzza)

In a recent address at the National Academy of Sciences' annual meeting, President Barack Obama expressed his desire to focus scientific research on improving peoples' daily lives, "for the purpose of providing 'the fuel of interest to the fire of genius in the discovery...of new and useful things.'"

Interestingly, as this article points out, Obama refrained from mentioning any of these ideas in the context of their perceived "evolutionary" significance. This makes sense when you consider that there are essentially two spheres of scientific research today.

The one which we hear the most about, and which we (meaning likeminded Creationists) are most critical of, is what we might call "conjectural science." A scientist discovers a fossil, and evaluates it according to his (unproven) evolutionary presuppositions. This kind of "conjecture" drives the priorities of mainstream scientific research today. But the question remains: on a strictly practical level, just how necessary is evolutionary theory to science?

"A great chasm exists between the real, testable, and experimental science behind developing 'prosthetics so advanced that you could play the piano again' and the scientific basis for looking at the fossilized bones of a wolf-like creature and contriving a “just so” story of how it “emerged” into a whale." (Guliuzza)

The second category is what we might label "testable and experimental science" as explained in the quote above.

Just for clarification, here is what I am NOT saying. I'm not arguing that a scientist's assumptions about the world have little or no influence on his research. A person's worldview always finds practical outworking in the things he does and says.

The point I'm trying to make is simply this. Evolution is not science - it is an ideology within which "science" is practiced. In fact, honest research reveals the exact opposite of evolution, as we're told in Romans 1:20:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

Obama claims that in his administration, "the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over." This sounds nice, but it's only more rhetoric - the president's real scientific agenda is revealed in what he does and not what he says. Consider his recent decision to fund embryonic stem-cell research...

If Newton or Galileo or Watts were alive today, I wonder what they would think of scientists who have to work overtime to make the "facts" fit their theory. As I recall these men did just the opposite.

On the Bookshelf

The Boxing Match of the Millennium

The Stone Forest in the Desert

These are some images I took in August, 2007 during our visit to Petrified Forest National Park in the badlands of southern Arizona. It was an incredible experience to walk through a graveyard of petrified trees - colorful giants composed of solid quartz, thickly scattered across rolling hills with no water in sight. Where did they come from? Did they grow here?








Park staff will tell you the trees drifted into their current location from distant forests during the Triassic period, and in a mixture of water, sediment and volcanic ash were very slowly petrified and buried (and are now being slowly revealed by erosion.) But is this really a satisfactory explanation?

Consider the petrified forests of Yellowstone National Park.

"Evolutionists explain the petrified forests of Yellowstone as the result of an ongoing cycle: 1) A forest grows and then is buried by volcanic ash and other debris. 2) Dissolved minerals are soaked up by the trees, petrifying them. 3) The ash weathers into clay and soil. 4) A new forest grows on top of the previous one, which is subsequently buried by volcanic ash to begin the process again. This process would have occurred numerous times to produce the 27–50 layers of petrified forests found here at Yellowstone, estimated to have taken over 30,000 years. Eventually these layers, with their forests, were exposed by erosion, revealing what we see today at Yellowstone...

...Biblical creationists explain these forests in a different way. The evidence points to catastrophic processes, which are consistent with the Bible’s teaching of creation about 6,000 years ago and a worldwide Flood. The petrified forests of Yellowstone actually are the result of catastrophic burial during the Genesis Flood, which with its associated volcanic activity, would have produced the right conditions for these trees to have been rapidly deposited and then to have been petrified quickly.

Quoted from Petrified Forests in Yellowstone.

Isn't it interesting how the same "evidence" generates two drastically different explanations?

Ligers and Zorses Sure, but Orangutan-men?

Liger

Zorse

Did you ever wonder what a cross between a tiger and a lion or a horse and a zebra would look like? As it turns out, these creatures are part of the same respective "kinds" which means hybridization is very possible. The consequent "ligers" and "zorses" are evidence of the fact that these creatures are closely related. This gets some evolutionists very excited, and leads them to ask the question, does the same hold true for men and apes?

Back in the 1920's Russian zoologist Ilya Ivanov (funded by the Soviets) attempted to produce human-ape hybrids in order to demonstrate evolution in action.

"Charles Lee Smith wrote that the objective of Ivanov's experiments was to achieve 'artificial insemination of the human and anthropoid species, to support the doctrine of evolution, by establishing close kinship between man and the higher apes.' The project was supported by The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism because it was seen as 'proof of human evolution and therefore of atheism.' When applying to the Soviet government for funds, Ivanov emphasized the importance of his research for anti-religious propaganda."

Needless to say, Ivanov's experiment was a complete failure.

"Today we know it will not be successful for many reasons, and Professor Ivanov's attempts are, for this reason, a major embarrassment to science. One problem is humans have 46 chromosomes--apes 48--and for this reason the chromosomes will not pair up properly even if a zygote is formed. Another problem is a conservatively estimated 40 million base pair differences exist between humans and our putative closest evolutionary relatives, the chimps. These experiments are the result of evolutionary thinking and they failed because their basic premise is false."

Read the article published by ICR here.

Darwin's Famous Finches: Compared

Many of you have heard about the finches Darwin discovered during his brief jaunt on the Galapagos Islands back in September of 1835. The story behind their discovery and the ongoing controversy regarding the finches' supposed "evolutionary" significance is addressed in depth in my article, Darwin's Finches: Reexamining the Icons of Evolution.

You may be wondering, what do these birds look like? Why are they such a hot topic? Consider the following diagram. (you may need to zoom in for more detail)


Notice how diverse they are, and yet how similar. There almost seems to be a series of fine gradations from small beaks to big beaks...almost like evolution in action. At least, that's what Darwin and others speculate. But there's far more to it than that. Read my essay to discover the truth behind Darwin's finches, those important details which most scientists aren't telling us these days.

Here are some photographs of the finches.

Dr. John Morris Comments on the Galapagos Islands

ICR just published an article by John Morris, Galapagos: Showcase of Creation. Dr. Morris was in the Galapagos Islands with Vision Forum in March - his article is excellent.

"No, there is no evolution happening on the Galapagos Islands. They really are a showcase for creation. On display is God's wise creative design in preparing robust gene pools in each created "kind" that enable all of God's creatures to adapt and survive varying conditions.

Darwin got it wrong at the Galapagos Islands. The Genesis account stands."

That's Not Science!

"According to Miller, the Brown University biologist, academia is opposed to explanations that rely on God as a causal agent because they go against the very definition of science: seeking a natural explanation for natural events and phenomenon.

The intelligent-design movement, Miller said, seeks to allow a non-natural explanation into science. 'By altering the definition of science, they seek a playing field where the supernatural can have scientific meaning.'" [Emphasis added]

"Ever since the birth of science as we know it, a cardinal rule for theists [believers in the existence of a god or gods] and nontheists alike has been to limit scientific explanations to natural causes," said Ronald Numbers, a science historian at the University of Wisconsin-Madison." [Emphasis added]

The above quotes were taken from National Geographic's article, Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science?, written by John Roach, published on April 27, 2005.

It looks like some of us weren't part of the comittee which decided that science must be strictly limited to "naturalistic" explanations, at least if Ronald Numbers is correct. If that were true, any theist who cast his vote in favor would have realized that he was defining himself into extinction.

Ultimately the question of Supernatural vs. Natural explanations draw up their respective battle lines on the issue of origins. Roach admits this in the very first paragraph of his essay.

"Where did we come from? It's one of the oldest and most profound questions. Now "intelligent design" theory may change the very definition of science by allowing the supernatural into the lab."

But, as in all other areas of true "science," supernatural explanations cannot be used--after all that wouldn't be science would it?

Before he makes such a bold assertion, the evolutionist should pause and think for a moment. "What authority do I have to make such a judgment? In fact, what foundation is there for me to even think rationally at all?"

At the end of the day, the battle of the worldviews is not a free-for-all fact fight (ie. who has the most credible research and "evidence"), but one which must be waged at the worldview level. We need to evaluate presuppositions, and determine which side actually has the moral and intellectual foundation upon which to base their arguments.

Prov. 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

Psa. 24:1 The earth is the LORD’S, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.