Evolution & Racism

[Dr. Shane]

Darwin's "bulldog", Thomas Huxley, was no closet racist. Can we fault him? Isn't racism logical to those that believe in macro-evolution? Huxley wrote this in his book, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews:

"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest."

Darwin wrote, "I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit... the more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten he Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to he world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."

It isn't hard to understand how they got to that conclusion. If humans evolved from a common ancestor as the apes and monkeys, than just as there are some races of monkeys and apes that are smarter than other races of monkeys and apes, so there is with humans. Of course DNA science has now proven there is no significant difference between the human "races". In fact, it isn't even appropriate to use the term race as all humans belong to the same race.

What DNA science has done is prove Darwin's and Huxley's ideas on race false and supported the Biblical teaching of the origins of the races. The Bible teaches that all "races" are descendants of Noah and his sons. When the languages were confused at Babel, various groups of people went their own way and inbreeding took place within those groups for at least a few generations. This inbreeding likely resulted in creating dominant features in their descendants which has come to distinguish them from other groups in the human family.

[David Koot]

What DNA science has done is prove Darwin's and Huxley's ideas on race false and supported the Biblical teaching of the origins of the races. The Bible teaches that all "races" are descendants of Noah and his sons. When the languages were confused at Babel, various groups of people went their own way and inbreeding took place within those groups for at least a few generations. This inbreeding likely resulted in creating dominant features in their descendants which has come to distinguish them from other groups in the human family.

Well, actually . . . certainly studies have been done which indicate differences between races--differences in various capacities, such as bone structure, for one example. As for Noah's descendants, I did go back and look at Spiritual Gifts bk. 1 awhile back, and there does, indeed, appear the suggestion that there was amalmagation between man and beast after the Flood, and that the results may be seen in certain races of mankind--unspecified.

Dave

[Kountzer]

What Does the Key Phrase Mean?

[Top of Document]

The crux of the “amalgamation” passages is this: “amalgamation of man and beast.”

That statement could be construed to mean amalgamation of man with beast, or amalgamation of man and of beast. In a construction like this the preposition “of” is not necessarily repeated, though it may be clearly implied. We might speak of the scattering of man and beast over the earth, but we do not therefore mean that previously man and beast were fused in one mass at one geographical spot. We simply mean the scattering of man over the earth and the scattering of beasts over the earth, though the original location of the two groups might have been on opposite sides of the earth. In other words, the scattering of man and of beast.

[Dr. Shane]

The difference between groups of people (aka races) are insignificant and similar differences exist within a given group of people. Certain groups of people have curly hair, or a different bone structure, or different shaped eyes. However different people within the same group have different color eyes, different heights or different facial shapes. However those are all minor differences. There is no evidence that any one group of people is more advanced than another.

[aldona]

Quote:

That statement could be construed to mean amalgamation of man with beast, or amalgamation of man and of beast.

The E.G. White Estate does address this question, and the discussion can be found here.

http://www.ellenwhite.com/books/books.asp

If we take the position that "amalgamation of man" and "amalgamation of beasts" are separate issues, then we are still left with the label of "base crime" being applied to the amalgamation of man, namely the mixing of different races of man.

This is just as racist as the idea that certain races of mankind are the result of cohabitation between man and beasts.

It seems that no matter how we try to squirm our way around it, this remains one of EGW's most controversial (and to my mind, least "inspired") statements.

aldona