WE have been criticized in the past for pointing out the racist motivation behind “creation science,” but we’ve never found any persuasive evidence that would change our opinion. The last time we addressed the issue was here: Creationism and Racism.
Today we bring you some further evidence from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. They have this new article at their website: Canadian Philosopher Insists ‘We Are All African!’ Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:
Philosopher and secular humanist Christopher diCarlo claims that if humans trace their lineages far enough back in time, they will all have an African origin. He has been spreading his “We Are All African!” message on a cross-Canadian tour. However, the science behind diCarlo’s version of history leaves plenty of room for skepticism.
DiCarlo figured that if no group has any special status, all humans can embrace their evolutionary origins and be freed of the “hatred, violence, and bloodshed” that such beliefs foster. Of course, even if scientific studies show that all people are biologically the same, this does not logically justify his “no special status” claim. God can choose certain people, and that makes them special — unless it is first assumed that there is no God.
Are we reading that correctly — ICR says that belief in God can justify the belief that some people have a “special status”? We continue:
In an article appearing in “Free Inquiry,” a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, diCarlo attempted to present evidence in support of his “out of Africa” theory. He claimed that African fossil discoveries catalog a history of part-man/part-ape creatures that walked upright, specifically naming the “Lucy” and “Toumai” fossil forms as examples. But he ignored clear scientific evidence that shows that Lucy was not in mankind’s lineage, and was not even an upright walker.
Ah yes — that blasphemous “out of Africa” theory so detested by young-earth-creationists. ICR then nit-picks at the biological evidence, which we’ll skip. Then they say:
[The fossils mentioned by diCarlo] do not line up in any evolutionary ancestor-descendant relationship and thus provide no clear support for evolution. Instead, they are more accurately interpreted as varieties of mankind who all lived at the same time, which is consistent with the Bible’s historical account of man having been created specially and recently.
Here’s how the ICR article ends:
DiCarlo admonished his readers: “So we must accept that evolutionary theory about human origins is a responsible means for establishing scientific facts about who we are and where we came from.” But since this acceptance of evolution relies on misrepresenting data, excluding contrary data, substituting stories for evidence, and name games, it is exactly the opposite of “responsible” science.
Yes, science “relies on misrepresenting data,” and “excluding contrary data.” Those are things that creationists would never do. Therefore, creationists can reject that detestable “out of Africa” theory and may continue to believe they’re special — and not related to … them!
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.