Sometimes I long for the good ol' days when everything was about global warming. You know, like how McDonald's was destroying the planets because cow farts produce methane. Leftists got all worked into a frenzy and sane people got to laugh at them. Good times!
We still get to hear about global warming from time to time, but it doesn't consume the left like it used to. They have a whole new boogeyman to obsess about now – racism! Now, everything is racism. Working full time is racist. Driving a car is racist. Arresting rioters is racist. And now, even denying evolution is racist! You heard me right; if I don't believe in evolution, it's because I'm a white supremacist.
You think I'm kidding, right? You think I'm exaggerating or I'm making too much over some crackpot's tweet. You think someone made a slip of the tongue or posted a poorly worded sentence that could be misconstrued to imply creationists are racist. Nope. Just read the headline for yourself. According to Scientific American, “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy.” From the article Allison Hopper writes:
“I want to unmask the lie that evolution denial is about religion and recognize that at its core, it is a form of white supremacy that perpetuates segregation and violence against Black bodies. Under the guise of “religious freedom,” the legalistic wing of creationists loudly insists that their point of view deserves equal time in the classroom.”
I often cite Scientific American (SA) on my blog. I do this for several reasons: they post a lot of material, they write pop-science articles geared toward a lay public, and they talk a lot about evolution/creation (always on the side of evolution, of course). Their arguments are trash, but at least they're fodder for blogging. This article, though, is a new low – even for them. It's a hot mess of straw men and non sequitur. I shouldn't have to waste my time rebutting any of it but since SA felt it compelling enough to publish, it must represent the views of at least a few people so I will do what I can to ridicule them for it.
The first thing I noticed was a little point of contradiction. In one paragraph, Hopper wrote, “The global scientific community overwhelmingly accepts that all living humans are of African descent. Most scientific articles about our African origins focus on genetics. The part of the story that is not widely shared is about the creation of human culture. We are all descended genetically, and also culturally, from dark-skinned ancestors” [bold added] Maybe it's a quibble by me, but if the claim that we're all descended from dark-skinned ancestor isn't “widely shared,” why does she think denying it is the primary factor motivating creationists? Wouldn't that produce a sort of Barbara Streisand effect, where going to great lengths to cover up something merely draws more attention to it? I guess I was just struck by the irony of the comment. It seems to undermine the entire premise of her article.
Moving on, then, Hopper wrote, “At the heart of white evangelical creationism is the mythology of an unbroken white lineage that stretches back to a light-skinned Adam and Eve. In literal interpretations of the Christian Bible, white skin was created in God's image.” I noticed Ms. Hopper didn't include any chapter or verse that white evangelicals are interpreting literally to mean God has white skin. I can assure you, no such verse exists. Of course, skeptics are welcome to prove me wrong and point one out to me. Go ahead. I'm listening.
What is going on is a text book, straw man argument. She's making a claim that there's something in the Bible that really isn't there. She's also saying this thing that doesn't exist is central to “white evangelical creationism.” The fact of the matter is that nowhere in the Bible is anyone described by the color of his skin. Moreover, there are very few descriptions of any person's physical appearance at all. We're not even sure what Jesus looked like. If I had to guess, I believe He would have been dark-featured like most other middle-eastern people.
Ms. Hopper is so grossly ignorant of the creationist movement, that she seems totally unaware that nearly every mainstream creationist organization agrees that Adam probably had brown skin! From Ken Ham, posted on Answers in Genesis, September 1, 1991, we can read the following: “I suspect Adam had a middle-brown skin shade. All humans have the same basic skin color, just different shades, because of a brownish pigment called melanin... In The New Answers Book 1, it is explained that from two people having the right mix of dominant and recessive genes for the amount of melanin, all shades of brown in humans could arise. Thus, if Adam and Eve were both a middle-brown shade, all shades from dark through to light could be accounted for in their children and future generations. For the same reason, Adam and Eve probably had brown eyes and dark hair.” So for 30 years, AiG, perhaps the most prominent creationist organization, has been telling people Adam was likely brown-skinned!
Hopper further parades her ignorance of the Bible with this comment: “Dark skin has a different, more problematic origin. As the biblical story goes, the curse or mark of Cain for killing his brother was a darkening of his descendants' skin.” Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! The Bible does not say that Cain or descendants had dark skin or that their skin was darkened. Genesis 4:15 only says, “the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.” It doesn't even say the “mark” was passed on to Cain's children. Jeez!
Hopper continues, “Historically, many congregations in the U.S. pointed to this story of Cain as evidence that Black skin was created as a punishment.” I have heard there are Christians who have claimed this. I've never met anyone who actually espouses it, but I've read from reliable sources that reported hearing similar statements. Let's say for the sake of argument, it's been said. Any supposed Christian who would actually believe this would be, at best, in the fringe minority. It's not found anywhere the Bible, and such teaching is rejected by the majority of Christians – myself included. It's not fair to paint all of Christianity with comments made by a handful of bigots. Should I trot out quotes made by evolutionists that describe Caucasians as more evolved and Negros as closer to apes?
Hopper next claims, “The fantasy of a continuous line of white descendants segregates white heritage from Black bodies. In the real world, this mythology translates into lethal effects on people who are Black. Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible are part of the “fake news” epidemic that feeds the racial divide in our country.”
You may have noticed a pattern. Hopper continuously claims there are fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible being used to fuel racism yet nowhere does she cite the alleged passages that are being abused. Indeed, there are none. They are merely her chicken little rantings about dangers that don't exist! So let me cite exactly a few passages from the Bible that should dispel the racial divides.
Acts 17:24-26, “God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Creationists in particular believe that all different people of the world are descended from the first couple. There aren't different races – there's only the human race.
Genesis 3:20, “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” Did you catch that? It doesn't say she was the mother of whites only; Eve is the mother of everyone! Creationists believe that – evolutionists don't.
I've gone too long so let me wrap up with this. Christianity breaks down the barriers that the world has used to divide us. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two kinds of people in this world: those who are alive in Christ and those who are dead in sin. Galatians 3:26-28 says, “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
 |
| https://unsplash.com/@terrenhurst |
In all fairness, the estimable Allison Hopper also does not cite any actual creationists who hold that [a] Adam and Eve were created with white skin, or [b] that white skin is the image of God, or [c] that dark skin was the mark of Cain. She's not necessarily just making stuff up, inasmuch as in my wide and not always salutory reading I've run across all three ideas, sometimes even espoused by people whose lifetimes overlapped with my own. But certainly none of them are in the Bible, and indeed I've never come across a major creationist organization or apologist who advanced any of them.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if dark skin was the mark of Cain, and all Cain's descendants died in the Flood, how could the curse of Cain have any relevance to modern Black people?
But then, insisting that two plus two equals four is white supremacy. I am so informed by some of our leading modern thinkers in education. Insisting on objective facts as relevant to arguments is white supremacy, also (so, alas, your proof that creationism is not white supremacy is, itself, white supremacy). Also, I'm pretty sure that peanut butter is white supremacy. I remember a halcyon time a few years ago when leftists smugly insisted that reality had a liberal bias; I think I preferred that idea to the one that reality is a white supremacist construct. But such are the times and the manners.
Should I trot out quotes made by evolutionists that describe Caucasians as more evolved and Negros as closer to apes?
Maybe. I'm pretty sure Hopper would be willing to toss any of these evolutionists, all the way back to Darwin if necessary, to the wolves and insist that evolution is properly an African idea.
I should note in advance that "more evolved" means simply "more changed from the last common ancestor of the two groups being compared;" it is not a synonym for "smarter," or "stronger," or "superior." It is not even a synonym for "more complex" -- snakes are more evolved than lizards in, among other ways, lacking the four limbs of the lepidosaur last common ancestor. It is not even a synonym for "better adapted," since a population that moves into a new environment may evolve to fit the new environment, so that they are simultaneously more evolved than the populations that remained in the old environment and yet less adapted to the present environment than their relatives are to the stable old environment.
Also, evolution, since Darwin at least, has been understood as a branching process; all humans are necessarily equally closely related to any nonhuman species. I myself have pointed out that, as Darwin noted in The Descent of Man, per his theory there can be no trait, upon which one might base a claim of racial superiority or inferiority, that is common to all members of one "race" and absent in all members of other "races." It seems to me that this feature of the theory is fatal to racism as traditionally conceived. But again, that is a resort to objective facts and logic, and hence is another example of white supremacy.
Steven J,
DeleteYou said, “In all fairness, the estimable Allison Hopper also does not cite any actual creationists who hold that [a] Adam and Eve were created with white skin, or [b] that white skin is the image of God, or [c] that dark skin was the mark of Cain. She's not necessarily just making stuff up, inasmuch as in my wide and not always salutory reading I've run across all three ideas, sometimes even espoused by people whose lifetimes overlapped with my own. But certainly none of them are in the Bible, and indeed I've never come across a major creationist organization or apologist who advanced any of them”
I'm glad you agree that none of these things are found in the Bible nor are they endorsed by any mainstream creationist. They are, at best, fringe views held by a bigoted minority. Hopper's error is that she uses the extreme to marginalize the average.
My greatest lament, however, is that Hopper's views, as extreme as they are, are becoming the average in leftist politics. I used to call the left, “liberals.” Now, there are liberals in the classic sense – many that I disagree with, politically – who are still sane people that can have a dialogue with people with whom they disagree. The new norm of the crazy-left is to riot and cancel. I must admit that the thought has crossed my mind that my blog will someday be canceled. It's alarming.
You said, “I'm pretty sure Hopper would be willing to toss any of these evolutionists, all the way back to Darwin if necessary, to the wolves and insist that evolution is properly an African idea.”
You're absolutely right. When I think of the state of public education, I can't help but to suspect it's intentional. They are not only rewriting history, they are graduating people who are essentially illiterate. Combine that with gun control and I can't help but to compare it to slavery in the South. The best strategy they have to control the population is to keep them uneducated and unarmed.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley