Surprise! Discoveroids Say Evolution Is Racist

You’ll be shocked — shocked! — by what the Discovery Institute reveals in a new post at their creationist blog. It’s titled Human Evolution as a “Path to Whiteness”, and it was written by Klinghoffer. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Staff of Evolution News [the Discoveroids’ blog] recently toured the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and brought back a fascinating and revealing series of three photo essays on how the museum covers evolution (see here, here, and here). [Links omitted.!]

We wrote about one of their thrilling posts — see Huge Shock at the Smithsonian Museum. Let’s see what Klinghoffer has for us this time. He says:

I was not part of that particular trip. So I was struck by a point made in the final essay, [Link omitted!]: the simplified and misleading science on display, which is supposed to be so up-to-date as to merit showcasing on the National Mall, retains the element of traditional Darwinian racism.

Traditional Darwinian racism? Egad! Klinghoffer tells us:

Believe me, I don’t use the word “racism” casually — it is grotesquely and most unfairly overused in our current culture. Note this, however:

[He quotes something:] Entering the Hall of Human Origins [the Smithsonian exhibit], the viewer is greeted by a panorama of species becoming more “white” as they evolve. [Gasp!] One exception is the Hobbit of Indonesia (Homo floresiensis) which is portrayed as exceptionally dark…. Inside the Hall of Human Origins, these same six specimens are portrayed on a path to whiteness. Visitors seem to accept this portrayal without rioting because, after all, this is “science.”

We’ve posted several times about the creationist clunker that Darwin and his theory are racist. See, e.g.: Discoveroids — One of Their Strangest Posts Ever. Anyway, Klinghoffer continues:

I had never thought of this before. In contemporary museum displays and other evolutionary depictions, just as in Darwin’s Descent of Man and in the notorious Civic Biology textbook that was at issue in the 1925 Scopes Trial, human origins are portrayed as an upward progress from dark to white.

Is it that way in China too? Somehow, we doubt it. Let’s read on:

Check out some examples from around the Internet, here, here, here, here, and here. [Links omitted!] Do a Google image search for the phrase “human evolution” and you’ll see many others.

Just a coincidence? Or is Darwin’s racist legacy [Groan!] still with us today? You tell me.

Okay, that’s enough. The bottom line appears to be this: Forget about science. Textbook illustrations are offensive, so Darwin’s theory is false. Hooray for the intelligent designer — blessed be he!

Copyright © 2021. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

12 responses to “Surprise! Discoveroids Say Evolution Is Racist

  1. When I was a kid growing up in Texas, I remember people saying that blacks are “black” because God left them in the oven for too long. Now that’s racism!!!

  2. Desperate stuff. “We must reject evolution, whether or not it is evident, because it is racist” That is, the truth, the evidence, doesn’t matter. Believe what I believe, not because it is true, but for some other reason.

    That is, Klunkdropper’s attack would be invalid, even if evolution made racist assumptions. Obviously invaid. Blatantly so. But there are no racist assumptions to the idea that natural selection favoured loss of melanin in northern latitudes, to make the most of the sunlight available, for the purposes of vitamin D production. The first modern humans whose remains have been found hailed from Morocco, about 300K years ago – and they were probably “black”, in that climate. So what?

    This is so what: To Klanghuffer, it matters. Skin colour matters. And he’s the one calling evolution “racist”? Get away!

  3. Why do they keep saying Darwin all the time. Darwin Darwin Darwin. Get a room creationists.

  4. Richard is right. Darwin. Darwin. Darwin. The creationists sound like a broken record. If Darwin hadn’t come up with natural selection someone else would have eventually come up with it. Oh, someone else did, Alfred Russel Wallace. And if not either of them, someone latter would. But the “Modern Synthesis” is so many light years ahead of 19th century evolutionary theory that the 19th century mind and criticism of the creationists falls flat. Hey, right in there with the flat Earthers. Birds of a feather and all that……

  5. Richard is right.

    You should tell that to my mother in law. Okay guys, enough with the mother in law jokes. It’s getting real old real fast, not unlike a certain relative by marriage.

  6. Richard is right. only in the sense that he expresses my view, which, by definition, is the correct view.

    However, I have a leg up on the whole Ma-in-Law experience. My mother had two overriding wishes: to be a Ma-in-Law and a grandmother. When she met my girlfriend* in London, for the first time, mind you, she said, and I quote as the words are seared into my brain like a Lazy-P brand, “Oh my god, my grandchildren are going to be Limeys, nice to meet you.”

    (Imagine my surprise and delight when my actual MIL turned out to enjoy gin & tonic at any time of the day and trounce me solving the Telegraph daily cryptic. “You see, dear, it’s an anagram that spells Primula vulgaris, a common flower that grows in Devon.”)

    *Full disclosure, I never used that term.

  7. Are all English MILs like that, Doc? Mine was the same. In the case of her mother, who I suppose would be my grandmother-in-law, it was croquet, rather than the daily cryptic, but with exactly the same result.

  8. About cryptic crossword puzzles. Is there any source for cryptics for the USA?

  9. About cryptic crossword puzzles. Is there any source for cryptics for the USA?

    Subscribe to the Daily Telegraph. Cheap!

  10. @focbil1351
    British crosswords are impossible for a non-Brit. References which are easy for a Brit mean nothing to us foreigners.

  11. @focbil1351
    British crosswords are impossible for a non-Brit. References which are easy for a Brit mean nothing to us foreigners.

  12. @TomSWhen I worked in London I took the 7:19 from Paddington to Slough arriving at 7:50. A work colleague of mine, brilliant for an Australian, worked the Times cryptic almost as quickly as he could write. I’d have maybe three clues done on the vastly easier Telegraph in the same period.

    @Dave Ll Dunno. Guess I luckett’d out. In her garden, where the weeds pulled themselves up and walked across the lawn to the neighbor’s garden, she always described her flowers by their Latin names. Sounded like Hermione casting spells. “And here we have the Leviosa. It’s Levi-O-sa, not Levio-SA.”