Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[shunyadragon]

So , that means we must accept literally the 'Garden of Eden' ?

What you must do? My posts reflect the range of how Christians interpret the Pentateuch. This needs more clarification. The mythical accounts of the Pentateuch deal with a lot more than the existence of the "Garden of Eden. It has been demonstrated that the authors of the Pentateuch and the New Testament, and the Church Fathers believed in a literal Pentateuch. What they wrote and believed reflected the limited cultural view of the time.

We don't force anything , Science deals with facts and evidence , Scripture deals with faith.

True, scripture deals with subjective faith, but the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch is in direct conflict with the documented objective facts of science and history.

You trying to make that necessary opposite is quite another thing to discuss.

Not clear.

This is hillarious.
Stick to geology please..

I personally stick to foundation of evolution as the facts of geology, biology, genetics and chemistry. The subject of the thread concerning the accusation of racism in evolution is related to the problem of the interpretation of the Pentateuch by fundamentalist Christians.

Parabels are literal , are you reading what you wrote?

I never suggested parables are literal, All the parables used by Jesus are older parables of Hebrew tradition and of course are not literal.

Which is literal interpretation of the Bible , and no verse in the Bible covers the whole timeline of life on Earth.
Where are the dinosaurs in the Bible?

The dinosaurs are not in the ancient tribal scripture of the Bible for obvious reasons they had no knowledge of science.

The proposed timeline is in the Pentateuch and somewhat variously interpreted as up to about 10,000 years or less.

So , your whole concept requires the reader to reject faith and accept evidence on literal interpretation.
'Forced to accept literal' is your answer in short...

There is absolutely no objective evidence for the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch.

No one is being forced to do anything. The literal interpretation of scripture, and the accusation of racism in evolution are based on a warped literal interpretation of the Bible without the knowledge of contemporary science and history.

 

[Dimi95]

What you must do? My posts reflect the range of how Christians interpret the Pentateuch.

You should be specific , since that is Young - Creationist idea.

Christianity contains a wide range of different people with different understanding about existence.

This needs more clarification. The mythical accounts of the Pentateuch deal with a lot more than the existence of the "Garden of Eden. It has been demonstrated that the authors of the Pentateuch and the New Testament, and the Church Fathers believed in a literal Pentateuch. What they wrote and believed reflected the limited cultural view of the time.

Still , it is irrelevant.
It demonstrates only the incapabilitiy to say otherwise since no other form of knowledge was available.They understood based on what society has given them..

True, scripture deals with subjective faith, but the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch is in direct conflict with the documented objective facts of science and history.

Yes , this is true

Not clear.

Do you think that only literal interpretation of the Bible is acceptable?
This is in general my question to your answer since you proposed literal interpretation.

I personally stick to foundation of evolution as the facts of geology, biology, genetics and chemistry.

As i do
Remember when we talked about Young-Earth evidence ? Well , since then , observing the evidence i accepted evolution and rejected Young-Earth Creation idea.

The subject of the thread concerning the accusation of racism in evolution is related to the problem of the interpretation of the Pentateuch by fundamentalist Christians.

Ok , now you are more clear

I never suggested parables are literal, All the parables used by Jesus are older parables of Hebrew tradition and of course are not literal.

Since you said 'fundamentalist' , this is valid.

The dinosaurs are not in the ancient tribal scripture of the Bible for obvious reasons they had no knowledge of science.

And that is my main point if you bother to read my answers.

The proposed timeline is in the Pentateuch and somewhat variously interpreted as up to about 10,000 years or less.

Yes , Young-Earth Creation idea is also unreasonable to me.

There is absolutely no objective evidence for the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch.

No one is being forced to do anything. The literal interpretation of scripture, and the accusation of racism in evolution are based on a warped literal interpretation of the Bible without the knowledge of contemporary science and history.

So the question would be ,'Do you think that the Bible necessitates the reader to interpret it as literal' ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now, now, now -- SZ -- have a good evening. Oh, and lest I not forget -- chimps did not invent nuclear weapons.

Please clarify the actual point you are pretending to make.

 

[shunyadragon]

You should be specific , since that is Young - Creationist idea.

Not necessarily. The only difference between Young Earth and Old Earth Creationism is time, not the substance of the Biblical Record of Creation and the belief in historical accuracy pf the Pentateuch,

Christianity contains a wide range of different people with different understanding about existence.

Not so wide, There are YEC, OEC, and liberal churches that believe in the anecdotal or symbolic meaning of Creation myth and much of the Pentateuch

Actually most Jews reject the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch in recent history with the growth of Reformed Judaism.

You need to define your view more specifically.

Still , it is irrelevant.
It demonstrates only the incapabilitiy to say otherwise since no other form of knowledge was available.They understood based on what society has given them..

It is very relevant, yes the Creation accounts and the other accounts in the Pentateuch are limited to what the Hebrews believed in ~600 BCE, but that is not the problem. The problem is predominant belief among many Christians that the Pentateuch is in some way a literal accurate history.

Yes , this is true

Do you think that only literal interpretation of the Bible is acceptable?

The problem is the literal interpretation of the Pentateuch is unacceptable in it's variations,

This is in general my question to your answer since you proposed literal interpretation.


As i do
Remember when we talked about Young-Earth evidence ? Well , since then , observing the evidence i accepted evolution and rejected Young-Earth Creation idea.


Ok , now you are more clear


Since you said 'fundamentalist' , this is valid.


And that is my main point if you bother to read my answers.


Yes , Young-Earth Creation idea is also unreasonable to me.



So the question would be ,'Do you think that the Bible necessitates the reader to interpret it as literal' ?

No, but YEC and OEC are both severely problematic.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

What explanation does the evolutionary doctrine give to the different human races? Does this have to do with the species of apes that populated the different regions of the earth?

In any case, in human likeness, how many different races exist among the apes that later, according to evolutionary doctrine, became the different human races?

Good evening Eli G.

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept. How many times do I hear of people saying that black people have not evolved because they follow the idea that light skin came about as an development when migration out of Africa was carried out, despite the fact that what is claimed to be our closest biological relative has light skin. This might make some people feel superior to others, to think that they are more evolved than others, but it's simply not true. I know black people who have adapted to cold temperatures, just as I know of white people who have adapted to hot weather. A number of black people have very wooly hair, which is a puzzlement to scientists who don't understand if their evolution was simply towards hot climates, why their hair should be thicker and woolier than those of lighter skin living in colder climates who have thin hair, or even balding. The explanation for the wooly hair of black people is the ridiculous notion that they evolved this to protect their head from the heat, but in actuality, most black people cut their hair very short in hot climates.

Understand that even giants in the evolutionary community like the late Stephen Jay Gould have admitted the following:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Hitler also believed in a superior race and millions of lives were lost because of it during World War 2.

Origin of Species was published in 1859, Descent of Man graced (or more properly, disgraced) bookstore shelves in 1871. Ideas have consequences, which is why no sooner had these ideas been published, atheistic, evolutionary adherents like Thomas Huxley (nicknamed Darwin’s bulldog and one of his closest friends) was spewing racist filth like the following; "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

The Bible tells us that the first humans were Adam and Eve, that they knew how to speak intelligibly as soon as they were brought in to existence. They knew how to speak, just as they knew how naturally how to breathe. They lived in a garden, not prepared by man, but by Yahweh and the temperatures and lifestyle was completely agreeable. I find it unlikely that it would have been either too hot, or too cold, but rather moderate and agreeable temperatures were evident. It mentions a river/spring in the Garden which parts into four major rivers, including the Euphrates. This has led many, including Bible scholars, to conclude that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle eastern area known today as the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley, with its remains long ago vanishing.

We are are descended from Adam and Eve. At no point in the history of mankind were we ever anything less than human. I think sometimes Yahweh must laugh when supposingly educated people defend with vigor that we evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years. It's stupidity on the highest level and it's come about by rejection of the plain truths of the Bible. If people want to believe that their ancestors were ape-like and stupid then they are welcome to. Maybe it makes some people feel better about themselves. Superior to those of the past. But whatever the reason, it's nonsense.

The three races undoubtedly developed from the three sons of Noah.

Racism in all it's forms is wrong, yet even so-called religious people have been known to be racist. Something I find very unusual because we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but rather the deeds we have done.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Good evening Eli G.

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept.

What does this mean? Racism is a human concept and old problem that existed long before we recognized and explained the evidence of evolution. Evolution may be twisted by some to their flawed personal bias, but racism is not a concept of the theory of evolution. You have a problem with hammers.

How many times do I hear of people saying that black people have not evolved because they follow the idea that light skin came about as an development when migration out of Africa was carried out, despite the fact that what is claimed to be our closest biological relative has light skin.

The evidence indicates that populations of human with light skin pigmentation evolved in populations of humans that had darker skin pigmentation driven by the selection of the environment.

If people use a scientific theory to advance racist views, that is not the fault of science or some inherent property of a scientific theory. No more inherent than the fact that a hammer can be used as a tool to build or a weapon to kill.

This might make some people feel superior to others, to think that they are more evolved than others,

There is no such thing as more evolved. Populations are evolved relative to the environment such that populations continue to exist with traits that are fit for the environment.

but it's simply not true. I know black people who have adapted to cold temperatures, just as I know of white people who have adapted to hot weather.

Those are physiological and developmental adaptations of individuals and are not due to changes in genes. Individuals can change within the extent of physiological and developmental parameters, but individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve. That evolution is through genetic adaptations that are derived from changes in the genome and passed onto descendants under selection of the environment.

A number of black people have very wooly hair, which is a puzzlement to scientists who don't understand if their evolution was simply towards hot climates, why their hair should be thicker and woolier than those of lighter skin living in colder climates who have thin hair, or even balding. The explanation for the wooly hair of black people is the ridiculous notion that they evolved this to protect their head from the heat, but in actuality, most black people cut their hair very short in hot climates.

I have no idea. No references. Just your summation of something that may or may not have facts to bolster it.

What does cutting of hair tell us about the evolution of a trait? It doesn't make any sense.

Understand that even giants in the evolutionary community like the late Stephen Jay Gould have admitted the following:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Would be nice if folks would give sources for their quotes.

I've read the passage this quote is mined from. It is taken out of context of an entire chapter. How is doing that right?

It represents the racism that already existed and the weakness of some people to find means to justify their personal beliefs. Scientists are not immune to the formation of subjective opinions. But those subjective opinions arise from the people that come to them for many reasons and do not arise naturally from the science.

Hitler also believed in a superior race and millions of lives were lost because of it during World War 2.

Origin of Species was published in 1859, Descent of Man graced (or more properly, disgraced) bookstore shelves in 1871. Ideas have consequences, which is why no sooner had these ideas been published, atheistic, evolutionary adherents like Thomas Huxley (nicknamed Darwin’s bulldog and one of his closest friends) was spewing racist filth like the following; "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

Instead of quoting a man with 19th Century views of race that really were not much different than those held by Abraham Lincoln, can you point to people of science today that use the theory of evolution to support racism? Stuff that isn't quote-mined out of context I mean.

How about showing that racism is the natural conclusion of the science. You have a lot of emotion, but very little fact. Your emotional appeal is not making the connections required to take it from emotional to factual.

The Bible tells us that the first humans were Adam and Eve, that they knew how to speak intelligibly as soon as they were brought in to existence. They knew how to speak, just as they knew how naturally how to breathe. They lived in a garden, not prepared by man, but by Yahweh and the temperatures and lifestyle was completely agreeable. I find it unlikely that it would have been either too hot, or too cold, but rather moderate and agreeable temperatures were evident. It mentions a river/spring in the Garden which parts into four major rivers, including the Euphrates. This has led many, including Bible scholars, to conclude that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle eastern area known today as the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley, with its remains long ago vanishing.

We are are descended from Adam and Eve. At no point in the history of mankind were we ever anything less than human. I think sometimes Yahweh must laugh when supposingly educated people defend with vigor that we evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years. It's stupidity on the highest level and it's come about by rejection of the plain truths of the Bible. If people want to believe that their ancestors were ape-like and stupid then they are welcome to. Maybe it makes some people feel better about themselves. Superior to those of the past. But whatever the reason, it's nonsense.

I realize you are expressing a literal belief in the Bible, but aren't you offering that as an example of spiritual superiority over others with a wave of your hand and against knowledge that can be rationally observed and evaluated? How is that not doing what you are preaching against?

The three races undoubtedly developed from the three sons of Noah.

There is nothing to support that there was even a Noah, let alone three sons or anything you claim here stemming from your literal belief.

Racism in all it's forms is wrong,

On this I agree.

yet even so-called religious people have been known to be racist.

Again, I agree.

Something I find very unusual because we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but rather the deeds we have done.

There is nothing about having a religious believe that vaccinates a person from personal bigotry. But there is nothing in the science to support a view that recognizing evidence and logical, rational explanations of that evidence results in racism.

 

[shunyadragon]

Good evening Eli G.

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept. How many times do I hear of people saying that black people have not evolved because they follow the idea that light skin came about as an development when migration out of Africa was carried out, despite the fact that what is claimed to be our closest biological relative has light skin. This might make some people feel superior to others, to think that they are more evolved than others, but it's simply not true. I know black people who have adapted to cold temperatures, just as I know of white people who have adapted to hot weather. A number of black people have very wooly hair, which is a puzzlement to scientists who don't understand if their evolution was simply towards hot climates, why their hair should be thicker and woolier than those of lighter skin living in colder climates who have thin hair, or even balding. The explanation for the wooly hair of black people is the ridiculous notion that they evolved this to protect their head from the heat, but in actuality, most black people cut their hair very short in hot climates.

What you hear is not from the scientists in the sciences dealing with evolution. Can you cite contemporary scientists the actually advocate this in the bold.

Yes it is simply not true that any one race is superior to other races. Rce color was simply an adaptation to different climates. gain please cite contemporary scientists in the fields of evolution that supports any sort of racial superiority.

Actually in the above you presented is a racist non-scientific perspective of racial differences and superiority common in the history of Christianity.

Understand that even giants in the evolutionary community like the late Stephen Jay Gould have admitted the following:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."

Hitler also believed in a superior race and millions of lives were lost because of it during World War 2.

True, but the misuse of evolution is not the sciences of evolution.

Origin of Species was published in 1859, Descent of Man graced (or more properly, disgraced) bookstore shelves in 1871. Ideas have consequences, which is why no sooner had these ideas been published, atheistic, evolutionary adherents like Thomas Huxley (nicknamed Darwin’s bulldog and one of his closest friends) was spewing racist filth like the following; "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

Darwin is not the first to propose evolution, and he does not represent the views of evolution by academic scientists in the 20th and the 21st centuries.

The Bible tells us that the first humans were Adam and Eve, that they knew how to speak intelligibly as soon as they were brought in to existence. They knew how to speak, just as they knew how naturally how to breathe. They lived in a garden, not prepared by man, but by Yahweh and the temperatures and lifestyle was completely agreeable. I find it unlikely that it would have been either too hot, or too cold, but rather moderate and agreeable temperatures were evident. It mentions a river/spring in the Garden which parts into four major rivers, including the Euphrates. This has led many, including Bible scholars, to conclude that the Garden of Eden was somewhere in the middle eastern area known today as the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley, with its remains long ago vanishing.

We are are descended from Adam and Eve. At no point in the history of mankind were we ever anything less than human. I think sometimes Yahweh must laugh when supposingly educated people defend with vigor that we evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years. It's stupidity on the highest level and it's come about by rejection of the plain truths of the Bible. If people want to believe that their ancestors were ape-like and stupid then they are welcome to. Maybe it makes some people feel better about themselves. Superior to those of the past. But whatever the reason, it's nonsense.

The three races undoubtedly developed from the three sons of Noah.

The ancient Bible without provenance of authorship, origin and time as written, like all ancient religious texts based on ancient mythology is not an adequate source to judge evolution. The Bible itself encourages racism.

Racism in all it's forms is wrong, yet even so-called religious people have been known to be racist. Something I find very unusual because we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but rather the deeds we have done.

Only true statement in this thread. Unfortunately the history of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and ISlam is dominated by tribalism, wars and racism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept

Those who would use evolution theory as a basis for their racism, at the very best are using a misrepresentation of it.
There's nothing in evolution theory that says anything whatsoever of one species or race or ethnicity of being "superior" to any other.

Origin of Species was published in 1859, Descent of Man graced (or more properly, disgraced) bookstore shelves in 1871. Ideas have consequences, which is why no sooner had these ideas been published, atheistic, evolutionary adherents like Thomas Huxley (nicknamed Darwin’s bulldog and one of his closest friends) was spewing racist filth like the following; "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man."

I don't know in how far this is actually true about Huxley, but I don't care either way.
It is an ignorant thing to say, regardless of its source.

All evolution theory does is explain how species change over time.
It's not a manual on how to organize society nor is it a guideline on how to treat fellow humans or other species.
Those who think otherwise are either ignorant, dishonest or misled.

And more importantly: none of it has any impact whatsoever on the accuracy of the theory.

The Bible tells us that the first humans were Adam and Eve,

Which is demonstrably wrong.

We are are descended from Adam and Eve.

No, we are not.

At no point in the history of mankind were we ever anything less than human.

False. Our distant ancestors where not humans. This is a genetic fact, wheter you like it or not.

I think sometimes Yahweh must laugh when supposingly educated people defend with vigor that we evolved from ape-like ancestors over millions of years.

We are still apes. Just like we are still mammals (and tetrapods, and vertebrates, and eukaryotes,....). This will never change, as in biology species do not outgrow their ancestry.
Our non-human ancestors were apes and mammals.
Our non-ape ancestors were mammals.
Our non-mammal ancestors were tetrapods.
Our non-tetrapod ancestors were vertebrates.
Our non-vertebrate ancestors were eukaryotes.

Humans are still apes, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes...
And should humans in the future further speciate into sub-species, then those sub-species would also still be humans, apes, mammals, etc.

It's stupidity on the highest level and it's come about by rejection of the plain truths of the Bible.

No. It's come about by accepting the evidence of reality. Regardless of the bible.
Also, you might want to reflect on the fact that the majority of bible believing christians have no problem at all with evolution theory.
So clearly your belief that one has to either believe evolution OR the bible, puts you in a minority. Most christians do not agree with you on that at all.

If people want to believe that their ancestors were ape-like and stupid then they are welcome to. Maybe it makes some people feel better about themselves. Superior to those of the past. But whatever the reason, it's nonsense.

Not nonsense. Genetic fact.

The three races undoubtedly developed from the three sons of Noah.

That is what the nonsense is. Genetics alone disproves this drivel.

Racism in all it's forms is wrong, yet even so-called religious people have been known to be racist.

"so-called"? I smell a no-true scotsman fallacy.

Something I find very unusual because we will not be judged by the color of our skin, but rather the deeds we have done.

Euh... no. You should read your bible. Deeds are just a footnote in your theology. The first requirement is your level of gullibility.
What matters most in christianity is what you believe, not what you do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would argue that racism is an evolutionary concept.

That would be a huge misunderstanding of evolution and how science works.

"Scientific racism" is a PSEUDOscience. Not science. It is no different than astrology or creationism or parapsychology.

Quite to the contrary, science has determined that distinct human races don't exist. There is, for example, NO clear boundary where "white" stops and "black" begins. There is some variation of human traits and some may be more common in some areas of the world than in other places. That is not the same thing as there being distinct groups. All of this dovetails quite neatly into evolution which would predict this.

 

[Dimi95]

You need to define your view more specifically.

Natural Science.

I reject every other possibility.