LIKE most on the informed side of The Controversy, your Curmudgeon has spent time debunking lies told about Darwin. See Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin. But we’re getting tired of being on the defensive.
Today we’re placing the racism issue exactly where it belongs — in the camp of the creationists. We’re going to beat them over the head with the club they’ve been trying to use on us. We’re going to expose the racism that lurks not far beneath the surface of the typical creationist.
We discussed much of this history before: Creationism and American Politics, so we’ll repeat just enough to frame the issue for today.
Any understanding of the creationism-racism topic must begin with William Jennings Bryan, one of the most loathsome creatures in American history — populist, creationist, advocate of the income tax and currency debasement — and a once-dominant figure in American politics. We discussed his career here: Let’s Have William Jennings Bryan Day!
Bryan’s role in the Scopes Trial is well known, and widely applauded by creationists; but they never point out that all through his career, Bryan was supported by the Klan. That support isn’t surprising, considering Bryan’s well-documented racism.
Bryan’s racism is no longer mentioned in polite society, but it’s a fact. That, and his creationism, his populism, his “progressivism,” and his mindless anti-intellectualism are very much a part of contemporary ultra right-wing politics. (Bryan was a Democrat, and those were all Democrat party issues until recently, but we’ve discussed all that before.)
Today’s Social Conservatives, who also label themselves as the family values crowd, tend to be very close to Bryan in their thinking. But they’re rarely so tasteless as to openly endorse Bryan’s racism. Yet we sense it in their insistence on creationism.
Let the truth be known! Racism is the always-present but never-mentioned motive for rejecting evolution and its corollary of common descent. Deep within every creationist is the secret fear that — gasp! — evolution means we’re related to … them! And you know who they are.
Despite the reality that lurks in their own closet, creationists endlessly lash out at Darwin for being racist. Their most common ploy is pointing out the full title of Origin of Species, a book in which human evolution wasn’t even addressed. The implication is that the then-common biological term “race” — which Darwin used to describe varieties of flowers, horses, and dogs — somehow implied a racist belief that Darwin never held.
That brings us to a new article we found today at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — truly the fountainhead of creationist wisdom. It’s titled Illustrations of Ancient Humans Skew Facts. The article is typical of creationists’ attempts to cast doubt on all aspects of evolution, but it’s also surprisingly revealing. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:
Museums and textbooks often use artistic renderings to estimate what a fossilized animal or plant may have looked like when it was alive. These images by “paleoartists” put flesh and faces on skeletal structures, and they can influence public perception of early human history more than the actual science — particularly in regards to human evolution.
So what? Let’s read on:
Paleoartist Viktor Deak contributed to the PBS NOVA series Becoming Human, which aired in November and depicted mankind as having emerged, Darwinian style, from a hairy, ape-like ancestor. Deak used software to create three-dimensional virtual models, which were then used to produce extremely realistic animations.
Again we ask — so what? You’ll understand, as ICR discusses this article about Deak and his work which appears in Wired Science:
Deak’s images accompany the Wired article, showing semi-human faces that have distinctly human eyes. Deak thoroughly studied the skeletal features of the creatures he was rendering, and his reconstructions of Homo ergaster and Homo heidelbergensis appear to match known fossil skull proportions for those extinct varieties of man. But the soft parts are interpretive, since these were not preserved in fossilized form.
Are you getting impatient, dear reader? Relax. Here it comes:
The clear message is conveyed, without a spoken word, that humans evolved from dark-skinned, hairy, wide-nosed creatures with sloped foreheads and jutting jowls. But the skin color, size of the nose and lips, and amount of hair are not supported by science, only assumed by evolution.
The “skin color, size of the nose and lips” — how offensive! If you click over to the Wired article you can see the image Deak created. Imagine how that strikes a creationist who believes in the literal truth of Genesis 1:27, which says:
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The creationist thinks: In His image, yes — but not that image! Moving along:
In other words, if Deak had depicted these creatures with light skin, normal lips, human beard growth patterns, and Roman noses or Oriental eyes, they would have been just as valid, scientifically. But that wouldn’t fit with the evolutionary story.
Right! Why not “light skin, normal lips,” etc.?
And that, class, illustrates the principal objection that creationists have with the theory of evolution. They may rant and rave about dozens of other debunked issues, but deep down in the guts of the typical creationist lurks the dreaded specter of a family tree showing that he’s related to … them!
Update: See Is Creationism Racist? You Decide!
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Because everyone knows that only Caucasian facial features are “normal” or “human.” Good catch, SC!
Of course, Carl Sachs. Adam & Eve were white, as was Noah and his family. And so was Jesus, without doubt. As for those other types … well, we couldn’t possibly be related. Darwin must have been crazy!
Jutting “jowls”? Egad; do these know-nothings even know that jowls sag and double-up, but jaws jut?
If they can’t even get human anatomy right — external anatomy, they can see and touch — how on earth are they supposed to fathom something as complex as the theory of evolution?
Just Google “Jesus” and hit the ‘Images’ tab: man, what a gallery of Noridic, Aryan Messiahs!
Great Claw says: “… what a gallery of Noridic, Aryan Messiahs!”
Check out this from Wikipedia: Depiction of Jesus. I’ve always assumed that Greeks, Jews, Persians, etc. all looked more or less the same in those days.
I read somewhere that racism was the last refuge of the truly unimportant and considering that creationism is a desperate attempt to keep the entire universe centered around you personally, I guess its just a natural fit.
This is a little much. Nowhere in the Bible does it say or imply that human races are not related.
That tedious list of begats in Genesis is there to explain every known people in terms of descent from Adam and Eve.
This is a very crude straw man argument. There may well be racists and racism among the creationist movements, but the Christians among them believe in the common descent of man.
As for historical depictions of Jesus, no one knows what he looked liked and people in ancient times had no way to know. So they depicted him as looking in themselves, down the clothes.
But as long as we’re going to invent a racism that doesn’t exist, why leave out people whov’e been dead for hundreds of years and didn’t even use the word “race” in the same way we do?
Gabriel Hanna says: “This is a very crude straw man argument.”
Most racist arguments are. But tell that to the ICR author who objects to the skin color, nose and lips of the ancestral image.
Most racist arguments are. But tell that to the ICR author who objects to the skin color, nose and lips of the ancestral image.
SC, show me where that author denies the humanity of black people, on religious grounds. That’s what you are charging him with.
I think this is a very unfair post and not worthy of your talents.
Show me the creationist churhes who deny that white people and non-white people are descended from Adam and Eve.
It is wrong of you to conflate theses issue in this way. I can’t look into every soul and know whose racist, and I disagree with creationists on nearly everything, but I don’t make up things to accuse them of.
I object to depictions of ancient Egyptians as African blacks, because it is historically inaccurate–ancient Egyptians were closely related to Jews and Arabs.
I also objected to a silly Newsweek cover about mitochondrial Eve showing Adam and Eve as African-American looking, because it is was silly.
Now call me a racist.
For anyone who’s curious, here’s the Newsweek cover in question.
http://www.virginia.edu/woodson/courses/aas102%20(spring%2001)/articles/tierney.html
“SC, show me where that author denies the humanity of black people, on religious grounds. That’s what you are charging him with.”
I’m not SC nor do I play him on television (I lost the role to George Clooney – how’s that for kissing up to the blog owner?), but everything the author of anything at ICR writes is on religious grounds and the contrast of thick lips in the Deak reconstruction and what the author of the ICR piece calls “normal lips” is the smoking gun. Clearly, in the author’s view, the lips of a great many Africans (and thus, African-Americans and African-Canadians) are not “normal”.
“Show me the creationist churhes who deny that white people and non-white people are descended from Adam and Eve.”
The point is that the creationists don’t want to accept that they are themselves descended from a black Adam and a black Eve (speaking metaphorically). Since the putative mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam likely lived in Africa, it would, contrary to your view, be silly not to portray them as looking like Africans (who, not entirely coincidentally often bear some resemblance to African-Americans). Why you think portraying them as African is silly is perhaps indicative of a view that white people are the “normal” humans and others not. And let’s face it, Gabriel, many creationists attribute differences in organisms to “degeneration” from the perfection of the time before The Fall and it hasn’t exactly been unknown for Africans to be cited as examples of that degeneration in humans (and then there is the curse of Ham, eh), so the idea that belief in common descent from a Biblical Adam and Eve is inimical to racism is nonsense.
Why you think portraying them as African is silly is perhaps indicative of a view that white people are the “normal” humans and others not.
It is silly to expect people living a hundred thousand years ago to look anything like the races we have today. Our current races are most likely due to sexual selection over the last 12,000 years–think of Australian aborigines and American Indians, both descended from Asians.
I see that you DO call me a racist, and assume I’m white.
it hasn’t exactly been unknown for Africans to be cited as examples of that degeneration in humans
SC says that creationists reject Darwin because they do not want to consider themselves related to black people. This is false, and all Christians believe all humans are descended from a common ancestor.
I’m sure there are racist creationists and perhaps the writer in question is one. That is not the point at issue.
Gabriel Hanna says:
As Mike from Ottawa points out, creationists claim that there’s been a lot of degeneration since the Fall. Many creationists believe that blacks are a wretched offshoot from the original perfect stock (curse of Ham and all that). They’re considered a separate group who are not in our direct line of ancestry. In this, the creationists understand the concept of common descent, but whites are presumed to be in the direct line, and blacks are a collateral branch. See: Creationism Implies Racism?, which discusses (and attempts to minimize) the racist writings of Henry Morris.
Addendum: Lots of good information in this article at the NCSE site: Racism and the Public’s Perception of Evolution.
Gabriel Hanna, I supremely doubt that anyone here is going to call you a racist, but I think you might be over-reacting a bit. I know that there are a lot of Christians who are not racist and hold creationist views, but creationism does hold ignorance and self-centeredness in pretty high regard. And that is appealing for a lot of racists and most of the racist people I know are “good, Bible Believin’ Christians.”
Albanaeon says: “Gabriel Hanna, I supremely doubt that anyone here is going to call you a racist …”
Yeah, I didn’t sense that at all. The subject matter we generally discuss is touchy enough. There’s no need for anyone on the sane side to get carried away by imagined slights.
In this, the creationists understand the concept of common descent, but whites are presumed to be in the direct line, and blacks are a collateral branch.
Uh huh. Why don’t you take another look at the descendants of Ham and get back to me? Among them you will find the Egyptians and the Canaanites. “White people” would be descendants of Japheth, with Hebrews and Arabs descended from Shem. Who’s the “offshoot” then?
The “curse of Ham” refers to CANAANITES. Who cannot by any stretch be identified with black Africans. Nice try, though.
Certainly there may well be Christians who can be construed as thinking that black people are degenerate offshoot of humanity, but outside of Aryan Nation fringes you’re not going to find that.
Suppose I accused Mike from Ottawa of thinking that blacks were more “primitive” and that he must therefore be a racist? That view was VERY common up until fifty years ago, even among those who weren’t creationists, as we all know.
There’s no need for anyone on the sane side to get carried away by imagined slights.
Mike from Ottawa: Why you think portraying them as African is silly is perhaps indicative of a view that white people are the “normal” humans and others not.
Wikipedia article on the Sons of Noah:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_Noah
Trying to fit this into modern notions of race and racism is a waste of time.
And this “creationism-is-racism” stuff is no more fair or accurate than “Darwinism-is-racism” which creationists and Discoveroids have been peddling. It’s guilt by association, is all, and I don’t think we need to resort to it.
Gabriel Hanna says: “It’s guilt by association, is all, and I don’t think we need to resort to it.”
Just a bit of well-deserved payback for all their Hitler, racism, and eugenics claims. I agree that not every creationist is a racist, but given the history of their movement, it’s ridiculous for them to claim the high ground.
As for Mike from Ottawa‘s comment, I took the black Adam & Eve as silly only because bible art and literature have been, until very recently, exclusively in the hands of whites, so they’d “naturally” portray scriptural people as looking like themselves. That’s the traditional view, at least in our culture. I don’t want to get tangled up in that. I’ll probably regret even this comment. Hey, Gabe — you’re not a racist. We okay now?
Gabriel Hanna: Wikipedia article on the Sons of Noah…Trying to fit this into modern notions of race and racism is a waste of time.
I agree. But then why do creationists do it?
Look, SC isn’t exactly making stuff up here. Creationist bigotry isn’t hard to find. Why are you so hard over on this?
bible art and literature have been, until very recently, exclusively in the hands of whites,
Coptic, Maronite, and Nestorian Christians would be astonished by this statement.
Creationist bigotry isn’t hard to find. Why are you so hard over on this?
Because what SC presents here is a distortion of what they actually think. I don’t like it when they do it to us and I don’t approve of doing it to them.
Are some creationists racists? Yes. Have some been in the past? Yes. They also breathe oxygen and put on their pants one leg at a time. Of course there were also a large number of people who used Darwin to justify racism.
Creationists are not rejecting Darwin because they don’t want to be related to blacks. For one, there are far too many black creationists.
Did I mention that at the APS shock physics conference this year we were next door to convention of–I am not making this up, I am quoting it exactly–Christian Fundamentalist IRS Employees. My estimate of their membership is 80% black.
You think black people are creationist because they think God made them inferior?
Examine your own sterotypes more carefully.
Gabriel Hanna says: “Examine your own sterotypes more carefully.”
Of course there are followers of any movement who haven’t given it much thought. I know a creationist who believes whatever her preacher tells her. Period. Not much racism there. Not much of anything there. I’m not talking about those people.
As for church art — okay, it’s not a subject I should be talking about. Have it your way. I still think the article is sound. I’m on far firmer ground than the creationists who blame racism and Hitler on Darwin.
I’m on far firmer ground than the creationists who blame racism and Hitler on Darwin.
Say “less shaky ground” and I can agree… there has been religiously justified racism in the West, for a very long time.
What I deny is that creationism is significantly motivated by racism. Creationism is an American product of the last hundred years. Racism in some form or another has been going on forever, as far as I can tell.
As for the CFIE convention, I got pretty mad when I saw some British scientists making fun of it–comments of the “only in America” type–I asked them, “You do realize that almost everyone in that room is black, right?” Of course that ended the discussion.
I don’t know where people get the notion that religious fundamentalism is something that only white people do.
Gabriel Hanna says: “I don’t know where people get the notion that religious fundamentalism is something that only white people do.”
I’ve seen you in a cranky mood before. You’ll get over it.
I’ve seen you in a cranky mood before. You’ll get over it.
Yeah, well, I’m doing final revisions for my dissertation; my PhD was awarded Friday and everything has to be done by this Friday.
If I’ve been too cranky I apologize. Reasonable and disagreement civil disagreement ought to be the hallmark of our side of the Controversy, and I can’t say honestly that I do the “civil” part too well.
We all get cranky. But if I do it too much here I’ll blow away all my readers, so I end up cursing at the computer screen. Hey, congratulations! Shall we now call you “Doctor Hanna“?
Thanks, but no-we had a conversation on this not long ago here.
“Colossal Mind” or “O One To Whom The Universe Pays Homage” will do just fine (and I will award you +1 internet if you can identify the reference).
Sorry, Gabe. Can’t identify those. I think you need to get some sleep.
Gabe,
This is totally off-subject, but I’d be interested in your opinion (yours,too, Curmy) of the book, “Physics for Future Presidents” by Richard A. Muller if you’ve read it. Just got a copy today and started to read; seems reasonable so far. And congratulations!
Recent news of Sarah Palin’s apparent racism doesn’t surprise me a lot. To be honest, when I heard her disparaging non-sense views of evolution as monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees I felt like she was using coded language to appeal to racists while leaving herself plausible deniability.
I might be wrong about Palin too. I definitely understand Gabriel’s point that it isn’t fair to paint all creationists with the same brush.
Also, is it just me or does Genesis 1:27 (“male and female created he them” in his image) imply that God must be a hermaphrodite?
Oroboros: “…does Genesis 1:27 (“male and female created he them” in his image) imply that God must be a hermaphrodite?”
It’s a little bit like asking the question, “Does God have a bellybutton?” I mean, if He created us in His image and all…
Racists will intepret the Creation according to their racism. But let’s be honest: the Bible says that the human being is created in the image of God, and this clearly implies something about the dignity of all human beings regardless of race. If evolution is true, then it is just an empirical question whether the races are equally human.
It is of course preposterous to blame Darwin for Nazi “racial science”–and other more respectible-seeming variations on it. But it also can’t be denied that that “science” would be impossible without Darwin.
It is hard to see how creationism comes off worse in this regard. One might say that science has shown what is true about the Biblical account of mankind as made in the image of God–were all not so different from each other after all.
Oroboros: “I definitely understand Gabriel’s point that it isn’t fair to paint all creationists with the same brush.”
Absolutely. One axis has on one end the anti-evolution activists who seem to know that they are misleading people, and on the other end the genuinely clueless, some of whom can and do correct their misconceptions.
Another axis has the flat-earth, geocentric, YEC, OE(young life)C, OE(old life)C, OEC+common descent “continuum.” There too you have committed believers and those apparently just convinced that their particular fairy tale sells better.
Then you have the Omphalos types, who believe X but concede that the evidence does not support it. And finally the IDers, who’ll take anyone who bad-mouths evolution under the big tent. To do that they have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward any details of the alternate “theory.”
In fairness to Curmudgeon and ~99% of critics of ID/creationism, they are writing to us who already know all that. It’s up to us to alert those who have not given it much thought.
Frank J, I’m not sure what it is, but there’s something special about a comment with both Oroboros and Omphalos.
Gabriel Hanna: Are some creationists racists? Yes. Have some been in the past? Yes. They also breathe oxygen and put on their pants one leg at a time.
One of the strongest and most powerful YEC organizations in the world – Answers in Genesis – spends approximately $27 million on a flagship creationist museum. In it, they prominently display a racial theory of origins that has not just been historically linked with racism, but was actually used by white christians and European civilization as a whole to justify slavery for several hundred years.
And you think this is just a few bad apples? I disagree. This type of institutional support shows that its the tree that is rotten – from root to stem. I don’t doubt that there are many unbigoted creationists. Some apples may turn out to be good despite the state of the tree, but that doesn’t make the tree any less rotten.
Moving back from metaphor for a sec, it is clear to me that YEC as a movement espouses a theory of human racial origins which has historically been strongly linked to racism and bigotry.
And you said nothing in defense of that particular picture Gabrial. That arrow is clearly not pointing at Canaan. Nor is it referring merely to Egypt, any more than the one pointing northwest is referring merely to Austrians. Faced with a picture like that, how can you possibly defend the notion that YECers don’t believe africans (of all stripes) are the cursed decendents of Ham?
Curmudgeon, the two words together have a touch of assonance and alliteration. By itself that’s not much, but I think there’s more.
Just a little before retiredsciguy wrote:
So omphaloskepsis was already out there.
Certainly the metaphor of navel gazing is a cousin to the metaphor of a snake eating its own tail?
SC, the reference was to Asimov’s Azazel stories.
Omphalos, even people who hate Sarah Palin have an obligation, I think, to be skeptical about hearsay. As for the “dog-whistle” accusation, I have absolutely no respect for it. It is just a form of guilt by association.
Seems to me you’re the one who hears “monkey” and thinks “black”. You have no evidence Sarah Palin does.
I might have to change my nick now. I like it.
Regrettably Gabriel, I’ve been exposed to a lot more racism than I’d like. The recent google-bombing of Michelle Obama’s photograph comes right to mind.
There is evidence Palin doesn’t like living near minorities according to her own father. That may be hearsay, but I presume her father is someone who is sympathetic to her cause and would try to put her in a good light.
I also found her comments about “the real America” last year to be similarly coded language. Again, she has been careful to ensure plausible deniability. But I think a lot of people heard what she was saying as “the real America is small towns that are mostly white” and not in the inner cities where “those people” live.
I also thought my original post on Palin admitted the possibility that I could be wrong. I remain skeptical of my own views. What I perceive as an attempt to use coded language for plausible deniability may be just misinterpretation.
I remain skeptical of my own views. What I perceive as an attempt to use coded language for plausible deniability may be just misinterpretation.
That’s the thing right there. The “coded language” argument. That’s what I don’t buy. I can’t see into Sarah Palin’s heart and know she’s not a racist, but I have never in my life seen real people talking publicly in “code words” except in the imagination of leftists. The accusation is intended to discredit a person without engaging their ideas, and is a form of “ad hominem”.
Sarah Palin is doing just fine discrediting herself in my eyes with her op-ed on global warming; not one Republican politician has escaped accusations of racism and using “code words”.
I guess that just goes down to experience. In my city the most volatile issue is immigration. Every time the media posts a story where there is either a perp or victim with Hispanic surname, they come out in droves. I see virulently racist beliefs espoused, deleted by moderators, and then re-posted by the original author in coded form.
When I actually went looking for evidence of Palin’s racism (or lack thereof), I found this and this (which adds some new details to the first).
You are right, we can’t see into her heart. There may yet be innocent explanations for her actions as Governor. And you’re right that there is plenty which isn’t “coded” to focus on.
Oroboros the Omphaloskeptic (odorous, ominous, and oblivious), there are code words used by social conservatives. They’ll use expressions like “sanctity of life,” “family values,” etc. Their base knows what they’re saying, and they can claim they’re not raising issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. It’s a way to run a “clean” campaign, but still get the word out. I’m sure I could think of expressions used by the other end of the spectrum. There was a time when “law and order” was claimed to be a racial code word, and maybe in some cases it was. But who can be against law and order? This is a big subject, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find lots of literature on the subject. I’m not going to chase after it, but I’m confident that there’s a lot of that stuff used all the time.
No, I don’t think SC’s examples count as “code words”. “Code words” are ostensibly unrelated. And “family values” was around long before anyone imagined there might be such a thing as gay marriage.
Neither do I think “immigrant” counts as a “code word”; it’s the result of trying to discredit people who want to enforce immigration laws by conflating them with racists and xenophobes.
Take me for example; I’m not “anti-immigrant” or “anti-immigration”. I am the grandson of a legal immigrant and married to a legal immigrant. And my immigrant wife and I both agree that illegal immigration ought not to be tolerated. Because we’ve spent a great deal of time and money making sure of my wife’s legal status, we both find it deeply unfair that some illegal immigrants are to be treated differently from others on account of their country of origin. If my wife and I made a mistake in her paperwork, she would be deported. There is no lobby working on her behalf.And the other side of this debate tries to paint us as racist and uses the formula “anti-immigrant”.
All I ask is that people enforce the laws we currently have, or have the courage to advocate new laws. Are there racist people who don’t like illegal immigrants? Of course. There are racists people to be found on any side of any question. The fact that some people who agree with me about some things are racist does not make me a racist; nor does it give people like Omphalos a license to claim that they can read my mind and know that I am trying to speak a secret racist language in an attempt to appeal to them.
We agree in principle on this, to a point. I did not say that immigrant was a code word. I said that news reports involving people with Hispanic surnames bring out the racists who, when they moderator smacks them down, turn their racial screeds into more coded screeds to the same effect.
It is basically presumed that every Gomez who gets into a traffic accident is an illegal immigrant. The basic viewpoint of these people is that this country was created for whites only. Therefore, according to their logic, anyone who isn’t white is an illegal immigrant.
Curmy, I have to agree with Gabe on the main point of this string. Let’s let the creationists get tar all over themselves on this “racist” issue. They’ll do a fine job of making themselves look stupid.
We should take the high road. Let them wallow in the mud (or tarpit, to be consistent with the analogy above).
Certainly there are creationist racists. In fact, it’s a safe bet that many racists are creationists. But it doesn’t follow that creationism is intrinsically a racist philosophy.
Omphalos:We agree in principle on this, to a point. I did not say that immigrant was a code word.
Fine, let’s go back to “monkey”. Are there racists who refer to black people as monkeys? Certainly, I’m related to some. But the vast majority of people who are non-racists do not use the word in this way–they use it to refer to ACTUAL MONKEYS.
Sarah Palin is using the word “monkey” to refer to the primate, this is very clear from the context of her remark, which is about primate evolution. You are not justified in saying that she is secretly trying to appeal to racists and the only reason YOU think it plausible is because you think you know already she is a racist. Even if she is, it’s not likely she is trying to say so secretly while talking about a COMPLETELY UNRELATED SUBJECT. You are far LESS justified for assuming so, because her feeling that humans did not evolve from monkeys is completely justified by the scientific evidence–not that I can give her much credit for that.
In fact, all you have to go on is a remark of her father’s speculating on her motives for something she did twenty years ago. The most you can conclude from that is that her father might be racist, or that he thinks she might be. But based on this flimsy foundation you erect this superstructure of secret code words.
Is there ANY way she could have expressed the thought “Humans and primates are unrelated” without you speculating that it’s a racist dog whistle? No.
@retired science guy:
In fact, it’s a safe bet that many racists are creationists. But it doesn’t follow that creationism is intrinsically a racist philosophy.
Wouldn’t matter to me if it were. If it were supported by the evidence I’d believe it. Which is why I would continue to believe in Darwinian evolution if if it ENTAILED racism. I have to believe what’s true.
Is there ANY way she could have expressed the thought “Humans and primates are unrelated” without you speculating that it’s a racist dog whistle? No.
Your characterization seems perfectly sufficient to me? Her descriptions of evolutionary theory are mockeries of it which is the most offensive part on the surface, so I have to start asking other questions. Can you be that dumb and get that far? Is she just trolling the entire country?
I have to start asking other questions. Can you be that dumb and get that far? Is she just trolling the entire country?
I wondered the same about Al Gore when he said the Earth’s core is at “millions of degrees”, or when Nancy Pelosi said natural gas wasn’t a fossil fuel. But only Republicans can be scientifically illiterate, or racist; everyone knows that.
Mocking the stupidity of politicians ought to be a universal. Dear Maggie Thatcher was a chemist and is a Fellow of the Royal Society, but other than her I cannot think of a truly scientifically literate politician.
“Let the truth be known! Racism is the always-present but never-mentioned motive for rejecting evolution and its corollary of common descent. Deep within every creationist is the secret fear that — gasp! — evolution means we’re related to … them! And you know who they are.”
That is the biggest load of generalization I’ve ever seen. I’m creationist, I’m a Christian, and I am NOT a racist. A TRUE Christian is not trying to disprove Evolution because they are scared they are related to black people. Just the insinuation is grossly irresponsible on your part. A TRUE Christian tries to disprove Evolution because it is unbiblical and cannot exist in tandem with Creation.
Anyone that is a racist is NOT a true Christian or has a really bad heart problem. The Bible does not advocate racism in any way and you could never prove it. So anyone who thinks it does (Christian or not) is wrong and is NOT being led by God.
The Church is fundamentallity anti-semitic. Aquinas gives the Catholic approval for the Nazi “Crystal Night”
“Since the Jews are the slaves of the Church she can dispose of their possessions”. Saint Thomas Aquinas