Skip to comments.Confronting Evolution's Racists Roots
Posted on 02/26/2009 8:31:37 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
CBNNews.com - CROSSROADS BIBLE COLLEGE, Ind. - Darwin's book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, revealed him as what John West calls "a virulent racist."
"He did write extensively about how evolution by natural selection creates unequal races, and that in the evolutionary scheme of things, blacks are the closest to apes," he explained. West is the author of Darwin Day in America.
"It's not just residual racism," he added. "He's using his scientific theory as a justification for racism and countless scientists after Darwin latched on to that."
Hosea Baxter directs reconciliation ministries at Crossroads Bible College. He says racism had always been around, but Darwin gave it an air of scientific legitimacy.
"Darwinism is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world today," Baxter claimed.
"Blacks and Native Americans would be portrayed as savages, ignorant or people who could not be civilized [and had] no hope of being civilized," he added.
Making Racism 'Popular'
Baxter works with Charles Ware. He and Ken Ham co-authored Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots. They contend Darwin did more than anyone else to popularize racism.
On the last page of his book, Darwin expressed the opinion that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a "savage."
In describing those with darker skin, he often used words like "savage," "low" and "degraded" to describe Native Americans, pygmies and almost every ethnic group whose physical appearance and culture differed from his own. In his work, pygmies have been compared to "lower organisms."
One professor in the 1880s wrote, "I consider the negro to be a lower species of man and cannot make up my mind to look upon him as 'a man and a brother,' for the gorilla would then also have to be admitted into the family."
"Since blacks were somewhere in the evolutionary scale between apes and men, they did not have souls," Ware explained. "And since they didn't have souls, some argued, 'We don't even have to preach the gospel to them.'"
Building a 'Better Breed'
Slavery and segregation kept the races apart, but maybe even more dangerous was how Darwin's theories led to active eugenics.
"[It's] the idea of trying to breed a better human being, often by trying to get the people considered defective not to be able to breed or have children," Baxter explained. "And this was a worldwide phenomenon but the U.S. really pressed it further than anyone else until Nazi Germany."
It led to the forced sterilization of 70,000 Americans, many of them blacks.
Then along came Margaret Sanger, founder of what would become Planned Parenthood.
"Margaret Sanger was very Darwinian and very much inspired by this overall idea," Ware said.
"Part of the impetus behind abortion was to annihilate the black race," Baxter added.
The 'Concern' of Interracial Marriage
There were also many laws to keep blacks from marrying whites. Baxter says lawmakers were made afraid by arguments in books like 1907's Race Mongrels.
"If we don't create this separation of the races, we're going to create this mongol race, this race of, say, retards," Baxter said of the book's content.
But Ware, the father of four interracial children, says that fear was ridiculous.
"People used to say interracial marriage is horrible. [That] it's going to destroy racial groups," he said. "It hasn't destroyed anything. We're still human beings."
Uniting through the Bible
Ware says he has dedicated his life and his ministry to undoing the damage of racism and "bringing red, yellow, black and white together based on biblical principle."
In Indianapolis, Ind., Ware heads Crossroads Bible, a small college, but one with big ideas about racial reconciliation.
It starts with showing what the Bible says about race -- a direct contradiction of Darwinism:
Race Only 'Skin Deep'
In their book, Ware and Ham point out modern genetics shows racial differences are in reality little more than skin-deep, and quote a scientist who says race is "a social construct...and it has no basic biological reality."
Crossroads Bible asks its students to push hard across race barriers.
"Get over the fear of failure, get over the fear of rejection," Ware urged. "We need to be intentional. We need to find people, meet people, talk to people."
"And we've got to figure out how to carry out Matthew 28:19-20," he added. "How do we make disciples of all...groups?"
Christians like Ware hope to convince the church to reject Darwinian thought and accept what the Bible says: there's only one race, the human race, and we have to love it in all its diversity.
The evolutionists and the communists both try to rewrite history inorder to hide the truth about their ideology.
I am so tired of this crap on Free Republic.
This crap article was posted days ago by crap spammer GGG.
Let it go people. Let it go.
Feel free to go somewhere else.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Step away from your dogma for a mere second and think about the empty rhetoric of West’s tired rant. West blames a naturalist for America’s sterilization policies in the early 20th century.
As if evolution was accepted and promoted by our politicians then (or even much now). It’s just so stupid and intellectually empty.
It’s just as stupid and empty as if so jerk wrote same dumb article about the bible, which has been done many times over. It’s unfair and solves nothing.
Tell us what you really think! Don't hold back now, just because some of us disagree with you. By the way, all the evidence is on our side...but you probably don't care.
I also notice Ware left out some parts of the Bible that have been used to justify racism and slavery.
Remember, Darwin also said eugenics won’t work basically because it is immoral, and such immorality would weaken a society more than it could hope to gain through eugenics. The leaders of the eugenics movement, and Discovery Institute shills, conveniently ignored this.
You disagree with me that this crap article was just posted the other day by GGG?
(Of course I know that’s not what you mean, but that’s what you said.)
Evidence for what? That Charles Darwin is responsible for all racism and eugenics of the world? Because neither existed before 1859? Because magically now some idiot wrote some dumb book accusing evolution of being responsible and other dumb people eat it up, looking for something - anything - to hold on to in the face of the scientific evidence for evolution?
Note: this is yet another non-scientific creationist rant that does nothing to diminish current scientific understanding.
Also Note: Even if Charles Darwin ate black people for breakfast and tortured Jews for recreation, his theory is still quite impressive and correct. “But you probably don’t care.”
One does not let go a debate, unless one wins or loses.
Because this debate comes up often, the argument hasnt been won by either side, therefore, it is still a viable point of debate. Let it go whattajoke! Just let it go!
Darwinism doesn’t absolutely require its adherents to be racist, but it has repeatedly tended that way.
Slavery was common in the ancient world, but it was a question of vanquishing your enemies, not of different races that were superior and inferior. “Race” was mostly a scientific theory of the nineteent century, and it fit right in with evolution.
It is common for Darwinists to distinguish themselves from Social Darwinists. But Social Darwinists certainly never saw it that way.
In the nineteenth century, “primitive” didn’t just mean culturally inferior. It also meant racially inferior.
Darwinists still automatically tend to think in those terms. If someone expresses religious beliefs, it means that he is backward, undeveloped, crude, not as far evolved up the tree of life as the superior Darwinists.
I suggest that you read, or re-read the Descent of Man. It is an example of a man making poor use of his own scientific work. Origin of Species was based on a lot of grunt work, which made his conclusions persuasive. But the second book does not rise to the same level, is based more on prejuice than observation, and the language IS racist.
So we end up here with hucksters promoting greivances on a national scale in order to promote real live communism by way of economic disruption.
And ask them of what they think of your ideas and defend them right there. Across ~three civilisations. Pick your your places.
I gave a direct challenge to whattajoke in my post #18. Let’s see if he accepts my challenge. I have 10-1 odds layed out that he won’t accept the challenge.
Until then, it propagates the theory that people are just animals that were lucky enough to get oposable thumbs so we could dominate the food chain. I tend to believe I was designed to look like the Creator and was blessed by Him to be his most prized creation. As long as you are just another animal, I should be able to shoot you down like a dog and sleep well at night because you just are advanced pond scum in reality. If you, on the other hand are God's creation that he loves, the I should tremble in fear that I have harmed you and will suffer a great price. Your world kills 50 million babies, gasses millions in war, murders people for $5 in their pocket, and locks people in gulags to work till you die.
If humans are just animals, what in the world are we waiting for? We need to nuke some ragheads, send a few warheads to China, Venezuela, Cuba, N. Korea, and then see if anybody else says a peep about it. We could be king of the world if all we have to do is terminate some primates to fix our problems. Humm, maybe we have a conscience for whatever reason and give value to all people. Your belief system has dire consequences and that is the basis of the argument, not some obscure scientist writing a paper for a government grant money to keep from getting real work.
A dog isn't guilty or innocent, it's just a dog. You have no value if you are just accidental pond scum and there is no Creator.