Every Monday, “Science and the Sacred” features an essay from
one of The BioLogos Foundation’s co-presidents: Karl Giberson and
Darrel Falk. Today’s entry was written by Karl Giberson.
There is an odd rearguard action to undermine evolution taking place that I don’t quite understand.
Rather than critique evolution for its inability to explain the bacterial flagellum, or the origin of life, or how the leopard got its spots, or any of the other countless things that presently challenge evolution, this movement seeks to undermine evolution by making Charles Darwin into a sinister, lying purveyor of evil social policies, like eugenics and genocide.
I recently taped a radio show with one of the leaders of this movement whose new book, The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin
, repeats the odd argument that Darwin was largely responsible for the holocaust. A cover blurb says the book “brilliantly demonstrates that Darwinism has deeply corrupted our civilization.” The book joins several others that have appeared in the past few years making exactly the same argument. The show aired yesterday on KSEV Houston and will be available online by next Monday.
This is not entirely new. The anti-evolutionary literature has been forever smearing evolution and, to a lesser degree, Darwin. Organizations like the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis have long maintained that evolution is responsible for most, if not all, of society’s ills, from rampant pornography and abortion, to euthanasia and teenage promiscuity. But these claims are easy to dismiss; the people making them are professional evolution bashers, trained in science, not intellectual history, and largely preaching to sympathetic choirs.
The focus on smearing Darwin is fascinating. The primary goal is to connect Darwin to Hitler, via the social applications of evolution, and have some of the latter’s sinister stench rub off on him. Nobody smells worse than Hitler, of course, so giving Darwin some of this offensive odor is sure to turn off some people.
This exercise puzzles me for several reasons. In the first place, scientists, in their day-to-day work, don’t care one whit about what somebody in their field might have done hundreds of years ago. Nobody has ever taken a poll, but I would put money on the fact that virtually no biologists have ever even read a biography of Darwin, much less give a hoot about any historical controversies presently animating the biographers. It is simply not relevant to evolution as it is understood today.
Even if Darwin could be shown to be a fictional character, like Ebenezer Scrooge, there are no consequences for the vitality of evolutionary theory. None. It is a part of the culture of science to be constantly cutting off the historical branch on which it sits. Evolution is widely accepted by scientists today not because Darwin is revered as an authority, but because recent work in the field continues to confirm it. Darwin, for scientists, is a footnote at most.
This peculiar opposition to evolution is so different than opposition to other scientific ideas. French Cartesians opposed Newton’s theory of gravity, but they did not do this by smearing Newton for being socially weird or Unitarian. Einstein argued aggressively against Quantum Indeterminacy, but never assaulted Niels Bohr for being pompous or living in the mansion of a beer magnate. Why in the world is anti-evolutionary fervor directed at poor deceased Darwin, rather than his theory, which is alive and well?
This “Darwin is bad” argument also rests on a most basic philosophical error, namely, the production of ethical directives from facts. This maxim is often summarized, “You cannot get ‘ought’ from ‘is.’” No matter how well evolutionary theorists may establish that history reveals that the “fittest do survive” there is simply no path from that observation to the ethical directive that the “fittest should exterminate the less fit.” And when I say “no path” I mean “no path,” in exactly the same sense that there is “no ladder” from my house to the moon. It is not that the argument is tortuous, complex, and requires degrees in philosophy to follow. There is no more a path from evolution to eugenics or genocide than there is a path from gravity to death by hanging as an appropriate capital punishment.
These anti-Darwin pundits point out that Darwin appears to have supported social applications of his theory–applications that, in a mutated, hyperbolic form, were invoked by the Nazis. This may very well be true–or not. I will leave this controversy to the historians because it doesn’t matter scientifically. If Darwin himself inferred moral (or immoral) directives from his theory that reveals one thing, and one thing only about the great scientist–he was capable of making foolish philosophical blunders. It does not indicate that such directives are somehow “intrinsic” to his theory.
And finally, if there is this strong connection between Darwin and Hitler, it is interesting that Hitler’s biographers all seem to have missed it. Experts on the deranged architect of the holocaust have spent countless hours tracing the origins of Hitler’s virulent anti-Semitism and none of them have discovered this link to Darwin.
As we have consistently argued in these blogs, we need to make our peace–not with a dead 19th century naturalist who may or may not have inspired Hitler–but with a theory that has been confirmed countless times over and now stands as a compelling account of the history of life on this planet.
posted September 14, 2009 at 9:50 am
“There is no more a path from evolution to eugenics or genocide than there is a path from gravity to death by hanging as an appropriate capital punishment.”
Brilliant.
posted September 14, 2009 at 11:14 am
Karl,
Although I agree with you that the character of the man Darwin should have little relevance to the discussion of Darwinism, the social implications of his ideas definitely should. It is implicit in the concept of evolution that certain races are superior to others (more intelligent, productive…), at least in the thinking of many evolutionists, as one author has observed:
“How shocking it is today to acknowledge that virtually every educated person in western culture at the time, on both sides of the Atlantic, shared Haeckel’s ideas [about the superiority of certain races]. Countless atrocities around the globe were rationalized by the belief that superior races were improving the planet by exterminating defective elements. This expressed itself in a variety of imperial attitudes toward non-Western peoples, lifestyles, religious practices, and ethics. The particular atrocities, of course, were not inspired by this version of social Darwinism, but there can be little doubt that sure viewpoints muted voices that would otherwise have been raised in protest.” (Karl Giberson, “Saving Darwin,” 76)
This same author writes:
“I find no compelling reason to think that the central message of Christianity is incompatible with humanity’s kinship with the rest of the animal world. In fact, this continuity with the animal world may place increasing theological significance on the welfare of animals.” (Giberson, 14-15)
You are correct to suggest that if there is an evolutionary continuum among the animal world, then this should impact our morality in many ways, and it has. However, this continuum must necessarily also be present not only inter-species, but also intra-species, among the human races. This understanding necessarily makes notions of racial superiority endemic to Darwinism, however embarrassing this might be when it surfaces.
What are the social implications? Well, if we can hunt primates, then why not also the inferior races. If we can throw primates into zoos and perform experiments on them, why not also the inferior human races?
As you have clearly observed, this thinking hasn’t been foreign to evolutionary thinking. According to evolutionist Ernst Haeckel, whose drawings we still have in our textbooks:
“You must draw [a line] between the most highly developed civilized people on the one hand and the crudest primitive people on the other and unite the latter with animals.” (Giberson, 76)
Evidently, the TE fails to see that when he abandoned the wisdom of Genesis 1:26—that we alone are created in the image of God—he has opened a box of horrors.
posted September 14, 2009 at 12:28 pm
The idea of racial superiority was around long before Darwin’s Origin of Species.
The idea of the Aryan master race came from the creationist Arthur de Gobineau in 1853. Nazi literature cites Gobineau but does not mention Darwin.
Darwin did not believe that there was a lot of bioligical differences between various groups of people. While some argued that the races were different species, Darwin argued that humans were all the same.
He did believe that groups differed based on culture, education and other factors.
Darwin was not in favor of eugenics. He did not believe government should interfere with reproduction. He also felt that there were more important things than natural selection, like morality. In Descent of Man he wrote:
“There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring. Important as the struggle for existence has been and even still is, yet as far as the highest part of man’s nature is concerned there are other agencies more important. For the moral qualities are advanced, either directly or indirectly, much more through the effects of habit, the reasoning powers, instruction, religion, &c., than through natural selection; though to this latter agency may be safely attributed the social instincts, which afforded the basis for the development of the moral sense.”
posted September 14, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Daniel Mann,
You write, “It is implicit in the concept of evolution that certain races are superior to others (more intelligent, productive…), at least in the thinking of many evolutionists, as one author has observed….”
It is certainly not an implicit part of evolution that some races are better than others. Racism has been around for a long time, way before Darwin. Racism was widespread in the 1800s, so racist thinking was a product not of science, but of that culture. I have read Darwin and some stuff that Abraham Lincoln wrote, and I think Abraham Lincoln had a much less PC view of different “races” than Darwin did. Now according to your logic, I could try to use Abraham Lincoln’s very un-PC remarks to try to prove that racism is an intrinsic part of being a politician (or a president, or American, or from Illinois, or being a Republican, or being tall, or having a beard, etc.). Obviously that would be ridiculous, racism is a product of culture and personal beliefs, not science.
You mentioned Haeckel in your post. His idea of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny has been rejected by scientists for decades, so that idea doesn’t have anything to do with modern evolutionary theory. You mentioned Haeckel’s embryologic drawing, which is a separate story. He did exaggerate some similarities in his drawing, but they were not totally fraudulent. I have seen ID proponents drawing to show he was wrong, and they usually exaggerate the differences. I read an article by the Moonie Jonathan Wells (who also wrote the sadly dishonest “Icons of Evolution”) in which he criticized a textbook for their diagram comparing embryos during development, which he said was fraudulent and based on Haeckel’s drawings. The textbook actually used photographs, not drawings! Wells thinks using non-doctored photographs of embryos when comparing them during development is fraudulent!
Anyways, as HDX’s post pointed out, many Christians in Darwin’s time thought that the non-Caucasian races where separate “lower creations” of God, or due to a curse on Cain or Ham (this view is still popular in a few Baptist churches in the south I have read about). Common decent shows us that all humans have the same origins, and some people aren’t the way they are because of being a “lower” creation or a curse of God.
Darwin’s views on race aren’t completely modern, like virtually EVERY person in the 19th century, but he actually had very liberal racial view for the time. He and his family were noted abolitionists and when you read what he wrote about the other cultures he encountered on his voyage you will see Darwin had a gracious attitude.
You might want to read Desmond and Moore’s “Darwin’s Sacred Cause” it talks about how one of the reasons Darwin seems to have developed his theory was due to his strong abolitionists views.
Also modern evolutionary theory, combined with genetics, shows us that humans have had very little time to separate genetically. Genetics has shown that there is more genetic variation in a race than between the races. This has led almost all scientists I have read to say that the idea of “race” is a cultural term and NOT a biological term. If anything, evolution and genetics has shown us that the distinction between races is artificial and unscientific.
Anyways, like Dr. Giberson wrote, evolution is either true of not based on evidence, regardless of if we think it is moral or not. Biological warfare is directly linked to medicine and the germ theory of disease. We can’t point to biological warfare’s horror to “prove” that medicine and the germ theory of disease are fraudulent and unBiblical.
posted September 15, 2009 at 6:36 am
Darwin might have been a great guy and without a racist bone in his body, and racism might have been around a lot longer than his theory, but these observations fail to engage the deadly and embarrassing truth endemic to Darwinism. If humanity represents a continuum with the rest of the animal world—and not a special “in the image of God” creation (Genesis 1:26)—then also do the various races of humanity represent an evolutionary continuum. If the human races represent a linear continuum, then speculation about which are more evolved or superior is inevitable.
I think that the Darwinist has to be honest and own up to this aspect of their theory.
posted September 15, 2009 at 11:06 am
Daniel Mann – the various races of humanity represent an evolutionary continuum only if “races” actually exist as a biological reality. Fortunately, they don’t:
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v36/n11s/full/ng1455.html
scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/09/more_evidence_that_races_dont.php
Etc.
Besides, even if human ‘races’ did exist, why would they have to form a “linear” continuum? Why couldn’t they vary across a lot more than one dimension, each being superior in different respects and different domains – even in different intellectual pursuits?
The converse problem is the Bible has been used – so far as I can see, more effectively – to produce racism. You’ve heard of the “Curse of Ham”, and the social consequences of that idea in American history, right?
posted September 15, 2009 at 11:47 am
Daniel, you said “I think that the Darwinist has to be honest and own up to this aspect of their theory.”
Really? And what about the Protestant?
Pop-Quiz: Who advocated the following actions be taken towards the Jews?
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. …”
“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. …”
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. …”
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. …”
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. …”
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them…”
“Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow…”
“If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.”
It was Martin Luther in his little book entitled, “On the Jews and their Lies”
If you’re looking for somebody to blame the holocaust on, you can take the log out of your own eye and start with Hitler’s fellow german. While a copy of “Origins” would have been hard to find on Hitler’s bookshelf, Luther’s pamphlet was widely circulated among the SS.
Contrast Luther’s attitude to Darwin’s attitude toward is fellow man. Obviously, having saving knowledge of the person and Work of Christ (and personally helping to formulate the doctrines of grace no less) does not innoculate one against vile attitudes. So let’s deal with evil wherever we find it and dispense with these silly attempts to lay the blame on a particular way of thinking.
Gordon
posted September 15, 2009 at 11:59 am
“I think that the Darwinist has to be honest and own up to this aspect of their theory.”
Only in the same way that the Christian has to be honest and own up to the aspect of Christianity that has been used by evil men over the years to justify racism, murder and even genocide.
You see, mere “facts” can always be twisted to suit the desires of evil men. Hitler wasn’t evil because Darwin made it so; he was simply evil, and (mis)used whatever means necessary to justify his evil actions. This included Christianity, evolution, German history, anti-Semitism and even paganism.
In the end, we are responsible for our own morality. Just as gravity is making no moral statement when a man is hanged, evolution makes no moral statement when it is used to justify abhorrent behavior.
posted September 15, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Chris and Gordon,
There is a critical distinction that must be made in this discussion. While you are citing people who have twisted and abused the Christian revelation, I am citing a problem that is implicit to Darwinism—-the necessary ancestral continuity between the species, a continuity that is not only inter-species, but also intra-homo sapiens. This is what you must engage.
Once you do away with the Genesis revelation that we humans are special, having been created in the image of God, you have undermined the very basis of Western morality and have opened the door as wide as it can open to racial speculation and policy.
posted September 15, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Daniel Mann,
You said “I am citing a problem that is implicit to Darwinism—-the necessary ancestral continuity between the species, a continuity that is not only inter-species, but also intra-homo sapiens.”
Again, evolution and genetics has clearly shown us that the idea of races is NOT scientific. There is more genetic variation within a group than between any group. Besides, when something is said to be more highly evolved in biology it just means that it is more adapted top it’s environment, not that the species is smarter or morally better than another species. And science has shown us that all Homo sapiens are of one race and not genetically differentiated enough for any group to be more “highly evolved.”
The idea of some races being more highly evolved than others is NOT implicit in evolution. People like Answers in Genesis are trying to twist evolution to make it say that so they can condemn it.
Like I said earlier a common interpretation of the Bible before Darwin was that non-Caucasian races where separate, lower animal creations of God, who were not fully human, or that the curse of Cain (or Ham) was responsible for races. Evolution and genetics has shown us that there is no such thing as races; they are only a cultural construct.
Again, the evidence is overwhelming for evolution whether your belief that evolution is racists is true or not (and at least 99.99% of evolutionists disagree with you).
Again, if you study genetics and evolution you will find that modern evolutionary theory soundly contradicts the belief that some races are more evolved than others.
posted September 15, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Daniel,
Your idea of a liner progression in species is decidedly pre-Darwin. Most Christians believed in a great chain of being that went up in worth toward the top with man at the near top, then angels, and then God. A linear progression is inherent in that idea, and it was used to justify racism, but evolution is not based on a great chain of being.
Evolution actually overturned the idea of a vertical progression of species, which each step up the rungs of the ladder of life getting better. So you are using a pre-Darwin argument of a great chain of being, that evolution overturned, to try to show evolution is racist. Do you see the irony?
posted September 15, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Daniel, there’s a couple problems here. First, of course, “the necessary ancestral continuity between the species, a continuity that is not only inter-species, but also intra-homo sapiens” doesn’t have the implications you seem to think it does. For example, “more evolved” doesn’t exist as a real biological concept – every species on Earth is equally ‘evolved’, but in many different directions. And actual data – which I’ve cited above – doesn’t support ‘racist’ conclusions. Indeed, it argues against them – it ‘closes the door’ quite solidly “to racial speculation and policy.”
Secondly, one of the contentions of this site is that evolution does not automatically contradict “the Genesis revelation that we humans are special, having been created in the image of God”. You may not agree with that, but you’d need to argue for it or point out problems with their arguments, not just assert it.
(Now, I’ve not seen any reason to accept Genesis as “revelation” in any sense, nor do I agree that it’s “the very basis of Western morality”, but that’s a separate issue.)
posted September 15, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Daniel,
“Once you do away with the Genesis revelation that we humans are special, having been created in the image of God, you have undermined the very basis of Western morality and have opened the door as wide as it can open to racial speculation and policy.”
First of all, you have to read Scripture pretty selectively and apply “the golden rule” pretty liberally in order to argue for the special status of every human being exegetically. You have to basically ignore many verses like this one:
“How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes the heads of your little ones against the rock. — Psalm 137:9
Secondly, TEs and ECs are not trying to “do away with Genesis” so you can stop with the sanctimonious straw-man arguments. We all want to protect biblical authority. We believe that man is created in the image of God just as stronly as a YEC or an OEC.
posted September 15, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Shouldn’t be too hasty to usher Darwin off stage. He has at least earned a prominent place in the wings.
Demonizing arguments can be very effective. Also very destructive.
Playing the demon card is common strategy in bankrupt arguments.
However, turning a demon card over reveals the word SHAME in block letters on the back side.
Doesn’t matter whether it was the well-intentioned pious demonizing witches in Salem, Hitler demonizing Jews and Gypsies, or the anxious faithful demonizing Darwin today, the flip side of the card still reads SHAME.
CFWelser
posted September 15, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Daniel,
It has already been pointed out to you that no one is doing away with Genesis, etc. But, since you seem to know so much, just what is the image of God, and when and how does a human acquire it? Please be specific.
posted September 16, 2009 at 1:13 am
Whether it’s evolutionary theory or Christian theology, no idea is totally immune from misuse for whatever ends. That’s just the way it is.
posted September 16, 2009 at 7:26 am
“We need to make our peace” not only “with a theory that has been confirmed countless times over and now stands as a compelling account of the history of life on this planet.” But with a conception of the nature of truth that continues, even within limitations, to demonstrate the ability to interpret reality with more accuracy and certainty than any other. And there’s the rub. Theology and religion have nothing to offer in ‘faith’ that compares. If religion can’t raise it’s game, if the God question can’t find greater substance and greater insight to our nature as a humanity, that can demonstrate a greater reality, it will either ultimately implode under its own contradictions or replaced by something new and significant that is in accord with contemporary understanding. Or both!
posted September 16, 2009 at 10:48 am
Robert,
I’m all for peace and grieve that I am in the midst of a verbal battle with others who call them themselves “Christian.” There are many flakey theories out there. I don’t feel any obligation to challenge the majority of them. I do value Christian unity, and if you want to believe in evolution, I can live with that (none of us are perfect!), especially if you are obeying Jesus’ mandate to bring the Gospel into the world (Matthew 28:19-20), especially in regards to other evolutionists.
However, the BioLogos Foundation and the other theistic evolutionists I’ve encountered aren’t content to stop there. They insist in trying to reconcile evolution with the Bible at the great expense of the Bible and Christian faith. The common strategy is to gut the first chapters of Genesis of any scientific or historical content in order to remove anything that might contradict Darwin.
However, as I have tried to argue on various occasions, to empty Genesis is also to demean and contradict what many of the subsequent Bible authors, including Jesus, had said about Genesis, thereby undermining the credibility of Scripture as a whole. Furthermore, I am shocked and perplexed to find the TEs oblivious or in denial about what they are doing.
Should we not be upset? Please tell us why not!
posted September 16, 2009 at 11:27 am
Hi Daniel, I made an attempt to answer your qeustion. Did you accidentally overlook my comment? Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Gordon
posted September 16, 2009 at 11:31 am
Gentlemen and BeagleLady (I’m assuming that you aren’t a gentleman!),
Some of you have countered with an excellent retort to my assertion that Darwinism must necessary see distinctions among the human races and that this will give rise to racial thinking, according to the evolutionary paradigm. You retorted that there are no true races and that the obvious distinctions are not humanly significant.
Of course, as a creationist, I applaud your response. This is a finding that the Bible has long anticipated, and I’m thrilled to see that Darwin is catching up. However, this observation doesn’t eliminate your problem; it just mitigates it. Even if there is only one genetic difference that distinguishes the human groupings, it still remains that it’s endemic to Darwinism to ask certain embarrassing questions:
1. Does this particular gene represent a leftover from a pre-human life form?
2. Does it account for intelligence?
Of course, the Darwinist guard now threatens and censures anyone who would ask such questions (i.e. Francis Crick), especially given its past associations with racism. But this doesn’t mean that this type of thinking isn’t endemic to Darwinism. Instead, the only true safeguard against racism is Genesis 1:26 which exalts all humanity.
Meanwhile, you insist that the BioLogos Foundation has committed itself to this verse and consequently to the dignity of all humankind, and perhaps this is the case. However, please don’t become impatient with us if we remain somewhat skeptical of this claim. Here’s why:
1. THE BIOLOGOS FOUNDATION HAS CLEARLY POSITIONED ITSELF AGAINST THE HISTORICITY AND SCIEN-CICITY OF THE FIRST SEVERAL CHAPTERS OF GENESIS. In doing so, they have removed the very foundation for the message and authority of this verse.
2. THE BIOLOGOS AUTHORS STRESS THE CONTINUITY (and not the distinction) BETWEEN HUMANITY AND THE REST OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. Karl Giberson had written:
“I can find no compelling reason to think that the central message of Christianity is incompatible with humanity’s kinship with the rest of the animal kingdom. In fact, this continuity with the animal world may place increasing theological significance on the welfare of animals and ecological responsibility.” (“Saving Darwin,” 14-15)
Certainly, we do have a Biblical mandate to protect animals and the environment, but to “find no compelling reason to think that the central message of Christianity is incompatible with humanity’s kinship with the rest of the animal kingdom” is to discount Genesis 1:26. Therefore, it seems like it’s one thing to say you stand by this verse, but it’s another to allow it to inform your thinking and worldview.
posted September 16, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Daniel,
I asked you a question about the image of God, since you seem to know so much about the subject. Are you going to answer it or not?
-Karen
posted September 16, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Sorry Karen BeagleLady,
Here’s the answer:
“Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God [Gen. 1:26] in true righteousness and holiness.” (Ephes. 4:21-24)
posted September 16, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Gordon,
I did’t respond to you because I wasn’t sufficiently clear about what you were trying to say. (But this isn’t a guarantee that I will respond to all comments!)
posted September 16, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Daniel, actually I confused this thread with the “Reading Nature…” thread. I had addressed your questions to me over there and got the two posts mixed up.
But concerning Racism and how it relates to Darwinism and Christianity, you may want to do some reasearch on the pre-Adamite theory and the Antipodes. Prior to Magellan’s journeys to the southern hemisphere, it was believed that no lands existed opposite the equator, and that the equatorial region was impassible via ship. Ergo, no people lived in the southern hemisphere.
Moreover, since the apostle Paul specifically states that the gospel had been preached to the ends of the earth (by the 1st century), and since no missionaries had traveled to the “antipodes” to preach the gospel, Christendom unanimously concluded that no such people or places existed. From St. Augustine:
“As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth…men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it. Those who affirm it do not claim to possess any actual information: they merely conjecture that, since the earth is suspended within the concavity of the heavens, and there is as much room on the one side of it as on the other, therefore the part which is beneath cannot be void of human inhabitants. They fail to notice that, even should it be believed or demonstrated that the world is round or spherical in form, it does not follow that the part of the earth opposite to us is not completely covered with water, or that any conjectured dry land there should be inhabited by men….and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man (City of God, XVI.9).”
And what could have possibly led St. Augustine to reach such a wrong conclusion on a scientific matter? It was concordism. He continues:
“For Scripture, which confirms the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, teaches not falsehood; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have set sail from this side and, traversing the immense expanse of ocean, have propagated there a race of human beings descended from that one first man.”
Another example of how scientific concordism fails to produce accurate scientific conclusions. But that’s not my point. The real story is what happened when news of Magellan’s encounter with the indigenous people of South America reached medieval Europe. Since all men were believed to be related to Adam, and since there was no conceivable means for prehistoric man to populate such distant places from the time of Noah (assuming the flood was a historical reality), they wrongly concluded that these human-like creature must not be fallen image bearers in need of the gospel. They were rather part of a pre-adamite race that somehow survived the flood, but no greater than animals spiritually. And of course, once that convenient descision was reached, they were pretty much treated like animals.
So applying the bible to such questions apart from the light of science is no gaurntee that a correct conclusion will be reached. Not only were medieval Christians wrong about the possibliy of men living in the southern hemisphere, but they were wrong about their relationship to the rest of the human family. In both cases, science would have shed some much-needed light on the subject.
posted September 16, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Daniel,
You wrote “Even if there is only one genetic difference that distinguishes the human groupings, it still remains that it’s endemic to Darwinism to ask certain embarrassing questions:
1. Does this particular gene represent a leftover from a pre-human life form?
2. Does it account for intelligence?”
I think you are mixing up genetics and evolution here. If there was shown to be a particular gene in some group, but not in others, the “problems” that you bring up would still be there if you are a creationists or an evolutionists. The genes would be different no matter what your scientific beliefs, political party, hair color, or religion. A fact is a fact. If a genetic difference is found, you as a creationists would have to also ask the same question about intelligence, unless you don’t believe that genes exist. All the research has shown that this has not been the case, but even if it is shown, it would be an equal problem for anyone that believes in genes.
I think your fist question shows a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory. Genes serve a function, they aren’t just leftovers. Most of our genes are “leftovers” from “pre-human” forms. That is why a mouse and a man have about the same number of genes. Research into evo-devo has thrown a lot of light on how these genes can be combined to form novel traits. But like we pointed out earlier, there is less genetic variation between “races” than in a race. This shows that all humans lived together until fairly recently and there has not been nearly enough time for sub-species to develop. Genetics and evolution have scientifically destroyed the idea of racism.
I also think you are mixing up the idea of innate human rights and total equality in characteristics. I have the exact same intrinsic rights as a human that George Washington, Thomas Aquinas, the Apostle Paul, Martin Luther King Jr, or Stephen Hawking have, but that does not mean I am equal in ability. You are trying to say that if it was shown that one group was better than another than racism is inevitable. I reject that idea, most scientists are much smarter than me, it doesn’t mean they are more human, or deserving of more rights.
I see a lot of the same logic being used in the feminism movement. If a study comes out that shows men might have better spatial reasoning than women (on average, with obvious exceptions) feminists like to say “that can’t be true because it would be sexist.” Something is either true or not, regardless of if you like it or not. Obviously there are probably scientific arguments that feminists use against the idea of men having better spatial reasoning in those studies (culture, sampling methodology, the test used, etc), but simply saying “I don’t like it so it must be false” or “that’s a sexist idea” is not a valid argument. And even if it is definitively shown that on average women had better verbal reasoning ability and men slightly better spatial reasoning, obviously that would have nothing to do with an individuals intrinsic worth as a person (and the stats are looking at group traits, not every individual in the group anyways).
People do differ genetically, that is a fact. That has ZERO bearing on the question of if all people have equal rights. The equality of all humans is a religious and philosophical question. Science might be able to point out genetic differences, but science can never say if every person has intrinsic worth or not. And like we have all said, science has shown that if you take a Caucasian and compare him to another Caucasian and someone of another race, you are actually more likely to find that the Caucasian and non-Caucasian are the closest genetically.
posted September 17, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Daniel,
Thanks but please put it in your own words.
posted September 17, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Dan,
I don’t think that you were able to touch the problem, although you were able to pick apart my unscientific terminology. You write, “Science has shown that if you take a Caucasian and compare him to another Caucasian and someone of another race, you are actually more likely to find that the Caucasian and non-Caucasian are the closest genetically.”
Even if you are correct in this matter, it still stands that if we evolved from lower life forms, then Darwinism still opens the door to speculation about which race is more animalistic.
Evidently, your assessments of the worth of human beings come from our being equally made in the image of God, and I of course agree with this. However, I’m surprised that you evolutionists do not allow science to have a say-so in this matter as you do when it comes to questions of human origins or the Flood. Clearly, we humans differ greatly in regards to intelligence. Why, according to evolutionary science, shouldn’t we relegate idiots to a sub-human status? How do you decide when to allow evolution to erode away Biblical truth and when not to? Is it all just a matter of political correctness?
posted September 17, 2009 at 2:41 pm
BeagleLady,
Based upon Ephesians 4, here is my understanding of the “image of God.” Paul parallels this concept with our having been created in “righteousness and holiness.” I would think that our conscience, feelings, hopes, dreams and intelligence are inclusive—whatever capacities we have that enable us to understand and commune with God.
posted September 17, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Daniel,
You wrote, “Even if you are correct in this matter, it still stands that if we evolved from lower life forms, then Darwinism still opens the door to speculation about which race is more animalistic.”
This door is only opened up to people that do not understand science. I do not get my moral pointers from science. Science tells us what is, not what we should do. There has been speculation about which race is better for thousands of years. It seems to be a terrible part of human nature, not a product of science.
You wrote, “However, I’m surprised that you evolutionists do not allow science to have a say-so in [the inherent worth of people] as you do when it comes to questions of human origins or the Flood.
Science can not study a philosophical or religious idea like intrinsic worth. It can study genetics and fossils and radiometric dating to throw light on topics like origins and a global flood, but not morals.
You also wrote, “Why, according to evolutionary science, shouldn’t we relegate idiots to a sub-human status?”
Again, because evolution tells us what is, not what we should do. Morals are outside the realms of science. Science might be able to help show what the outcome of a policy or action might be, but it can’t tell us if the policy is right or moral. Besides, if there was shown to be a genetic difference among races, everyone would still have to face that fact, the evolutionist would be in no more danger of racism than anyone else. Evolution does NOT tell us how to treat other people.
I see in your posts the same arguments that people used against Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Some Christians opposed it because they mixed up what is (science) with morals (religion). Those Christians said relativity must be false because it implied that all morals are relative. Obviously that just shows they did not understand the science. In the same way, evolution shows that all humans have a very recent common ancestor, and genetics shows us that the idea of races is not scientific, but science does not tell us how to treat other people.
You also have to ask yourself if evolution is so intrinsically racist, like you believe, then why has racism dramatically decreased since evolution was proposed? I’m not saying that the idea of evolution caused the end of racism (although science certainly has helped decrease racism). But if evolution was as immoral and racist as you say than why has the treatments of women, the disabled, the poor, and other races got so much better since evolution was proposed? Obviously that should be a big clue that evolution does not lead to racism or keeping people down. Science tells us what is, not what we should do about it.
posted September 17, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Okay, thanks. So how does a human get the Image of God?
posted September 18, 2009 at 5:03 am
Hitler’s idea was based on Artificial Selection – the process by which humans have changed many species of plants and animals be selective breeding, for example to create hundreds of breeds of dogs. This has been going on for millennia, and was therefore nothing to do with Darwin. Hitler’s plan was to use Artificial Selection to modify our own species. Darwin’s idea was that OTHER species could also do the selection, for example, bees have produced brightly coloured flowers by selecting those with the strongest colour.
Also, Hitler saw a struggle between different races, while Darwin saw a struggle between individuals.
So you see that Hitler owes absolutely nothing to Darwin.
posted September 18, 2009 at 11:23 am
Alan,
Let me just quote BioLogos’ Karl Giberson in regards to the relationship between Hitler and Darwin:
“[Evolutionist] Ernst Haeckel nudged racism of the third Reich along its malignant road by suggesting that the various human races were like stages in embryonic development…Not surprisingly, the Nazis eagerly embraced his ideas. Eager to rationalize their calculated genocide to well-educated and culturally sophisticated populace, the Nazis invoked science whenever it served their interests and ignored it when it did not.” (“Saving Darwin,” 76)
This certainly doesn’t mean that Darwin ever advocated anything like this, but it still remains that his theory provides ammunition, as opposed to Genesis 1:26 that clearly states that we are all equally created in the image of God..
posted September 18, 2009 at 11:26 am
BeagleLady Karen,
We were all created with in the “image of God” and retain it even after the Fall (James 3:9)
posted September 18, 2009 at 11:57 am
Dan,
Please be careful. You are putting a lot of words in my mouth that just aren’t there.
You wrote, “Science tells us what is, not what we should do about it.”
Ideally, this is so, but it’s a little too simplistic. Science is all about classifications. It labels some bodies “comets” and others “planets,” and others are embroiled in controversy. Likewise, there fossilized remains that are termed “human’ or “homo sapien” and others are classified as “hominid.” From what I understand, there is a lot of discussion about the Neanderthals and Cro Magnons, whether or not they were human. In other words, science does not have an authoritative measuring stick to determine who is human and who isn’t. Science can’t fully determine the way we classify and cut up reality into our various categories. There are many different characteristics that must be considered, and we weight them differently, depending upon our values.
Science depends upon these classifications, and these classifications depend on our values. Therefore, it’s simply not possible to make these facile distinctions between values and science. So back to my question: “How should science classify downs-syndrome babies? Are they less than human? Why not? Or how about the human fetus? Is it less than human?”
If they are less than human, they aren’t entitled to the legal protections that we humans are entitled to. Do you see the relationship between science and morality now? Are you going to try to argue that these classifications aren’t within the domain of science? If there are, what does science say in these cases and why?
posted September 18, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Daniel,
If Haeckel’s had such screwy ideas about race and embryonic development you still can’t blame Darwin, because they are nothing to do with fact of Natural Selection which Darwin discovered.
posted September 18, 2009 at 1:36 pm
In that case you don’t understand much, because the Cro Magnons are considered to be anatomically modern humans.
btw, creationists don’t agree on how to classify archaic humans.
posted September 18, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Probably as babies with Down syndrome. Science can make the diagnosis but cannot tell us what, if anything, we should do about it. (Just for the record, I am against abortion.)
posted September 18, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Karen BeagleLady,
The classifications that science does make have weighty moral implications. If science classifies the fetus as a human, we must regard the fetus in a very different way than had science not.
Should science generate new classifications for this massive lump we call humanity? Should some humans (Downs babies and the psychotic) be classified as “sub-human” or “pre-human?” Fortunately, science hasn’t made these sub-classifications. However, as the Christian worldview continues to wane, anything is possible. I’d predict that the comatose, the elderly, and perhaps even republicans may experience some form of de-classification.
posted September 18, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Daniel Mann,
You wrote “Should science generate new classifications for this massive lump we call humanity? Should some humans (Downs babies and the psychotic) be classified as “sub-human” or “pre-human?” Fortunately, science hasn’t made these sub-classifications. However, as the Christian worldview continues to wane, anything is possible.”
What you are ignoring is that the prevalent Christian worldview DID lead most Christians to view some races as sub-human. They used the idea of some races being separate sub human animal creations, or that some races where a result of God’s curse to justify racism. That was obviously a misrepresentation of the Bible, but so is anyone trying to get how we should treat someone from evolution.
Evolution is science, not morality. Like I pointed out earlier, the treatment of other races and the disabled has got much better since the 1800s, so obviously people accepting the science of evolution did not lead to more racism or the poor treatment of the disabled.
posted September 18, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Daniel Mann,
You wrote “Science depends upon these classifications, and these classifications depend on our values. Therefore, it’s simply not possible to make these facile distinctions between values and science. So back to my question: “How should science classify downs-syndrome babies? Are they less than human? Why not? Or how about the human fetus? Is it less than human?”
Again Daniel, this is a value judgment. Science can classify things, but science has NO say in how we should treat someone or something based on those classifications. Here is an example, science can show us if a fish can feel pain or not, but science has ZERO to say about whether someone should eat fish or not. Science can show us if a person is obese or not, but not if we should treat heavy people worse than skinny people. Science can point out differences between men and women, but that has nothing to do with whether they both have intrinsic worth or not.
There are an infinite number of scientific classification of people. Height, weight, education, hair color, IQ, gender, etc. That doesn’t have anything to do with the moral belief of how people are treated.
You continue making the same type of argument that feminist who accuse scientists of sexism because of some studies that show differences between men or women do. You are making the same argument that people who opposed the Theory of Relativity because they mistakenly thought it would lead to moral relativism made. Again, these gender differences and ideas about space-time are either true or not, separate of the values a person holds.
As far as your question about Downs Syndrome, I will point out again that their IS a difference in a Down Syndrome child and a non-down syndrom child, not matter your religious or scientific convictions. If you are a creationists or an evolutionists you have to agree about that. Simply saying “I’m a creationists” doesn’t change that fact. Each person who admits there is a difference (shown through science) now has to make an extra-scientific value judgment (based on philosophy or religion) about the person’s worth. That is where my Christian faith comes in! My religious beliefs show me that every person has intrinsic worth. I don’t use my Christian faith to try to disprove that there are genetic differences because I imagine there might be moral implications.
I will try one more example. Men commit about 80% of violent crimes in America, and in seems to hold throughout history that men are much more violent than women, certainly culture might play some role, but the evidence is that genes and hormone levels are largely responsiible for the disparity in violence between the genders. Of course that in no way implies that women are better than men, or that men are less evolved, or that men are deserving of less rights. Science can come up with explanation for why violence is more prevelant in men (hormones, evolutionary pressure, etc), but not about if violance is moral.
Again, the higher rate of violence in men is a fact, whether you are a creationists or an evolutionists. The creationists might say that the higher aggression in men is due to genetic differences that God directly created, the evolutionists might say natural selection encouraged reproductive fitness among men that were more aggressive. Neither explanation says if violence is right or wrong. An example of this is the ants that take slaves. This was a hot topic in Darwin’s day because once it was shown that one species of ants took another as slaves to do their work some slavery proponents tried to say that since God created slavery in nature then slavery in humans was natural and right. Obviously that is preposterous! Just because science shows something is true doesn’t mean that it is moral.
A fundamental assumption that you make is that if science shows a difference than that directs a person who accepts science toward a particular moral belief. This is categorically false. Hitler was certainly smarter than me, does this make me less human? Some of the nicest people I know do not have any understanding of science, does that make them deserving of less rights? My spatial reasoning is better than my wife’s, obviously that doesn’t make her sub-human. That is the point I’m trying to convey. Science can measure characteristics (IQ, education, spatial reasoning, etc.), but it takes philosophy and religion for us to decide how to treat people.
posted September 18, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Well said, Dan. And it is science that allows us to help those of us who are physically, mentally or psychologically impaired.
Daniel,
What happened when the church classified someone as a heretic? He/she would be burned at the stake.
posted September 21, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Dan,
You wrote, “A fundamental assumption that you make is that if science shows a difference than that directs a person who accepts science toward a particular moral belief. This is categorically false.”
There seems to be an intimate connection between science and morality. I had mentioned scientific classification. If science classifies the fetus and the newborn as human, then this classification will have a tremendous bearing upon their moral and legal status.
More to the point, as an evolutionist, Karl Giberson affirms the kinship between humans and primates. It is he who argues that this “kinship” should affect the way we treat the primates. If this is the case, then correspondingly, it should also affect the way we humans morally relate to the supposed specialness of humanity.
posted September 22, 2009 at 7:38 am
Well, why can’t we can be related but special at the same time? No one is trying to give Kanzi the bonobo the vote.
posted September 22, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Karen BeagleLady,
I think you’re mistaken that nobody wants to give Kanzi the bonobo the vote. Once again, here’s what Karl Giberson wrote:
“I find no compelling reason to think that the central message of Christianity is incompatible with humanity’s kinship with the rest of the animal world. In fact, this continuity with the animal world may place increasing theological significance on the welfare of animals.” (“Saving Darwin,” 14-15)
Although Karl wasn’t explicit about how this kinship should play out, it is clear that, as an evolutionist, he recognizes that, in some ways at least, Kanzi should enjoy some of our moral-legal protections. However, kinship works both ways. Once we minimize our human uniqueness and sanctity, then we can also make the case that the way we treat our kin Kanzi, can also be the way we treat other humans.
posted September 22, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Funny, it was a Christian who started the animal rights movement in England, not to mention the abolitionist movement. The FBI recognizes that there is a relationship between the way we treat animals and the way we treat people. And the Bible teaches that a righteous man cares for his animals.
Well then, we should stop classifying humans as vertebrates, mammals, and primates. We simply MUST do this to show just how special we are. Otherwise no one will ever know! Seriously, get real and stop conflating ideas.
Pingback: “Creation” - Science and the Sacred