There has been something that has been bothering me lately about the concept of evolution. How can a person who is a serious evolutionist not be a racist. If you believed that all people are simply evolved animals and different species evolve in different ways to adapt to their environment, than each race must (by the theory of evolution) be genetically different, and thus some better than others for our current society.
It's like the evolution theory of the different species of dog or horse. Some dogs are good with children but poor at being guard dogs (golden retreivers come to mind), others are good at protecting/fighting but poor with people (doberman pincers as one example). Obvioulsy these are stereotypes but you get the point. Some horse species are better pack horses and others are better racers. Then there are some that are just mediocre at most things. According to evoltion each species has "evolved" to a different set of circumstances and has different characteristics. Thus according to evolution, some races must be "better" or "worth more" to certain situations. Their value comes in their ability and genetic makeup not in their being or origin.
According to creation, on the other hand, man is formed in the image of God, and He breathed the breath of life into us. He created us for a purpose, thus we have value. It doesn't matter what race you are, you are valued by God and thus should be valued by others. When God did choose a people to call His own, it was because of what they did (or the father of the people did). When God rejected a nation/people it is because of what they chose to do or not do, not what color or genetic makeup they were.
Now obviously, all of those who have called themselves "Christian" in the past have not always acted this way. Even now there are those who call themselves "Christian" and seek to justify racism. That doesn't change the fact that God created man (thereby all races) in His image and likeness, thus all of His children are of value to Him.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
The human "races" are not very distinct. Genetically, we're very similar. While, given enough time to evolve separately, races could have changed enough for there to be significant differences in categories like intelligence, in reality, the human species is too young and has done too much interbreeding for there to be meaningful differences between races.
Here's a quote:
As it turns out, scientists say, the human species is so evolutionarily young, and its migratory patterns so wide, restless and rococo, that it has simply not had a chance to divide itself into separate biological groups or "races" in any but the most superficial ways.
"Race is a social concept, not a scientific one," said Dr. J. Craig Venter, head of the Celera Genomics Corporation in Rockville, Md. "We all evolved in the last 100,000 years from the same small number of tribes that migrated out of Africa and colonized the world."
Here's the source.
Obviously, there are some differences between most people whose ancestors have lived in West Africa for ten thousand years than those who have migrated to France. However, when you start to really analyze the data scientifically, it turns out that the differences between "races" are dwarfed by the genetic variation between people even of the same race.
If you're really interested in the subject, there's plenty of information. Start with the wikipedia article on race.
JC,
We're all human. "Race" is a term with limited meaning and does not include one race being more evolved than the other. We look different, but we're the same where it counts.
Is the black horse more of a horse than a white one?
So what you're telling me is that in spite of the obvious differences in appearances (that goes beyond just what color our skin is) the different races are not that different. So, as one example, how do you explain the evident physically superior numbers, percentage wise, that blacks have in professional sports. If there are not many distinct differences than you would expect that these diffences wouldn't be so skewed. Either that or the little differences genetically make for some big changes.
"when you start to really analyze the data scientifically, it turns out that the differences between "races" are dwarfed by the genetic variation between people even of the same race."
Well yeah, i would think that the differences between an individual who is developmentally disabled and a person who is a perfect specimen of health and intelligence would likely be more different than two people of similar intelligence and physical characteristics of different races. If the differences in races were to that extent than racism would be extremely rampant. We're not (or i'm not) talking about the isolated individual within the races. We're talking about the differences, overall, between the two races.
Just a note. We don't need to keep talking about this topic. I'm just continuing to play the devils advocate for the sake of discussion. So just let me know and i can settle this discussion at this.
The hard part about this word race is its general meaning. The word race can mean a number of things. It is not black and white term. There are other words in the English language that could bring about debate including how to measure intelligence. There is the study done with the African American population that showed that African Americans had excellent memory much better than any other culture. The scientist before the study determined long term memory was a sign of intelligence. After the results were tallied up all of a sudden long term memory wasn't a sign of intelligence. Does that mean that African Americans are the most intelligent? Who knows? It depends on your definition of intelligence. All of these discussions put together by JC masterpiece as a way to bring about discussions and to critically think about what you believe. It is not intended to criticize anyone just to get an opinion and to show support of what you believe and why. Is it a sign of intelligence to debate and understand your beliefs and why? Who knows but it is a good way to write and develop good writing and comprehension skills.
"All of these discussions put together by JC masterpiece as a way to bring about discussions and to critically think about what you believe."
These "discussions" are juvenile. I'm glad to do some educating, but this is basic info that JC could no doubt get on his own.
The only reason I even come by here is because for some reason JA has some interest here and I'm trying to figure out why.
JA, is this just an educational mission or do you really think JC has significant contributions of thought to offer you?
Wow Jay,
These are some major conversations that you have on this blog. I keep mine informal but you have all out debates... Its cool.
Keep in touch okay.
Post a Comment