ICR Says Darwinists Are Racists & Communists

You probably remember this post from two weeks ago: Disbelief in Evolution Causes Prejudice and Racism. We predicted that there would be howling and screaming coming from the usual creationist websites.

The Discoveroids have already posted their response — see Does Disbelief in Human Evolution Foment Racism? You can read it if you like but it’s a tiresome exercise in double-talk.

We’re going to discuss what we found at the website of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits, the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their post is titled Does Creationism Lead to Racism? It was written by Jake Hebert, a Research Scientist at ICR with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

A newly published psychology paper strongly suggests that disbelief in human evolution leads to racism. … This article echoes a Scientific American opinion piece published last year that claimed that denial of evolution is a form of “white supremacy.”

We didn’t know about the Scientific American article. Here’s a link to it: Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy, and one brief excerpt:

Early humans from the African continent are the ones who first invented tools; the use of fire; language; and religion. These dark skinned early people laid down the foundation for human culture.

Okay, let’s get back to ICR. Jake says:

Like last year’s Scientific American opinion piece, this [the one we recently wrote about] sounds suspiciously like a politically-motivated “hit job” on creationists. [Gasp!] Yes, skeptics of human evolution are much more likely to believe the Bible’s account of creation and to share its disapproval of homosexual behavior, but this study simplistically refuses to acknowledge what should be obvious to any parent or even to anyone with a sense of nuance: it is possible to love someone while disapproving of his conduct. [Creationists love Darwinists!] Moreover, the study equates biblical creationists’ affirmation of the Bible’s sexual morality with ethnic hatred.

That’s not how we read the study. Anyway, Jake tells us:

Evolutionists make the rosy claim that “belief in evolution would tend to increase people’s identification with all humanity, due to the common ancestry, and would lead to fewer prejudicial attitudes.” However [Here it comes!], this prejudicial link has been thoroughly documented [Huh?], as has evolutionism’s influence on ideological movements like Nazism and Communism [Aaaargh!!], which led to the deaths of tens of millions of people in the last century. Attempts to absolve evolution from its baleful influence on twentieth-century politics is sheer historical revisionism.

This is pathetic stuff. We debunked those clunkers a long time ago. See Hitler and Darwin, and also Marx, Stalin, and Darwin. Okay, Jake’s post continues:

Nor is it hard to see why a belief in evolution would naturally lead to racist thinking. If evolution is true, then it is entirely possible that one people group, through chance mutations and sheer dumb luck, might now be “more highly evolved” — and therefore superior — to other people groups. And what if this “superior” group decides it has a right to mistreat other “less evolved” groups? If we have no Creator and are just the results of a cosmic accident, then there is no objective basis for morality and “might makes right” is the only rule. In a universe in which evolution is true, what basis is there for saying that such mistreatment is wrong?

That paragraph is really wild! Rabid racists like the Klan in the old-time Southern US were opposed to Darwin’s theory and they supported the prosecution of John Scopes.

This is getting tedious, so lets jump right to the end of Jake’s post:

One can’t help but suspect that some proponents of evolutionary theory are getting rather desperate. [Hee hee!] For many years, they tried to simply ignore creationists. It was considered uncouth even to mention creationists in “polite” scientific conversation. That tactic didn’t seem to work, so now they are suggesting that we are psychologically defective and/or crazy. [No comment!] The one thing they aren’t doing is presenting convincing evidence for the evolutionary story. Perhaps that’s because such evidence is nowhere to be found.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That was really entertaining. Thanks, Jake!

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

9 responses to “ICR Says Darwinists Are Racists & Communists

  1. “This article echoes a Scientific American opinion piece published last year that claimed that denial of evolution is a form of “white supremacy.” ”

    The SciAm article was so bad that I won’t even attempt to analyse it. The claim that the paper in question resembles it in any way is a flat-out lie

  2. If we have no Creator and are just the results of a cosmic accident, then there is no objective basis for morality and “might makes right” is the only rule. In a universe in which evolution is true, what basis is there for saying that such mistreatment is wrong?

    I “Kant” tell if he thinks he just proved God or if he thinks everyone, for their own good, should at least pretend there is a God. At any rate, good luck deciphering an objective morality from the Bible. Better to get it directly from the source. And when you find God, let me know how much the tickets are. Also let me know why God gets a free “objectivity” pass.

  3. “If evolution is true, then it is entirely possible that one people group, through chance mutations and sheer dumb luck, might now be “more highly evolved” — and therefore superior — to other people groups.”

    Is the opposite possibly true? “If creationism is true, then it is entirely possible that one people group, through a beneficent creator or sheer deviltry, might now be “more highly evolved” — and therefore superior — to other people groups.”

  4. In a sovciety with different classes of people, for example a class of nobility, one inherits a class. It was often said that one has a certain blood, a blue blood, or one has even a drop of African blood.
    When the understanding of disease began to be developed in the 19th century, there was a lot of thought about races being carriers of disease.

  5. The evidence that the theory of evolution accurately describes the history of life on this planet is very convincing. The evidence that Jake’s favorite god exists is not.

  6. @abeastwood
    The problem with creationism is not a matter of the lack of evidence but rather that there is no alternative to evolution.

  7. Dave Luckett

    Hebert is indeed tedious. He’s also, in a sense, spectacular. Every train of thought he has ends by jumping the tracks and falling off the mountain.

    Take religion. Yes, yes, I know, for some here, that’s like taking furniture polish. But still. I swear to you that Hebert’s crazy idea that the only alternative to separate fiat creation of all living things is “a cosmic accident”, was confuted by all major branches of the Christian church many years ago. That was done on entirely theological grounds, perfectly logically. Hebert is preaching the heretical opinion that Almighty God must create by separate miraculous intervention. “Must”? What, you mean God could not have designed His creation to have brought forth life and intelligence naturally and inevitably? What else do you think Almighty God could not do?

    What alternative to an objective basis for morality is there? What, indeed? Fortunately, there is such a basis, and it need not be laid down in a set of rules made by divine decree. It is this: we human beings must co-operate to survive. We are a social species. If you like, that is as God intended. What benefits one improves all our chances of survival. And we are very various, to the point where each one of us is unique, which means that every loss is irreplaceable. Yes, we must lose everyone, eventually, but that does not imply that we can neglect the life or welfare of anyone. All morality springs from that one fact: we’re in this together, come what may. We don’t need a set of commandments to know that. Hebert is simply wrong. There is an objective basis for moral conduct. God might very well have intended it so. Maybe He did. I don’t know, but I also don’t know different.

    Finally, this. All geneticists, all anthropologists, know for certain sure that all human beings are one species. Yes, it is possible that various environments might be different enough to select for different traits, and that might eventually cause a speciation event. But it manifestly has not happened yet. It might never happen, given the obvious fact that human beings use the technology they have developed to make their own environment. There is simply no scientific, rational, or evolutionary basis for traditional racism.

    But what is brutally obvious is that whatever the original cause might be, there is an undeniable and significant correlation between creationism and racism. Creationists are more likely to harbor racist opinions. That is simply a fact. Hebert, as in much else, is in denial, and he is more than willing to pervert the facts and butcher the logic to sustain it.

  8. I don’t know if anyone has blamed evolutionism for the $17 tater tots at Coachella yet but keep checking the creationists blogs on that one.

  9. How much of segregation was based on the importance placed on the germ theory of disease? I