Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?

They didn't it's more like 5,000 years ago.

As noted, your links contradict your, now, back peddling, stuttering and mumbling. You really should to back and heavily edit your posts before too many people read them. Your self-contradictions and self-refuting arguments are total embarrassment.

What now, yet another conspiracy theory?

It is just laughable that you will pick and choose science as you pick and choose religious belief.

Yes I believe neanderthals went extinct during the global flood why do you say they went extinct ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?

List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?

According to who ? and why are they considered a sub species ?

 

[Hollie]

They didn't it's more like 5,000 years ago.

As noted, your links contradict your, now, back peddling, stuttering and mumbling. You really should to back and heavily edit your posts before too many people read them. Your self-contradictions and self-refuting arguments are total embarrassment.

What now, yet another conspiracy theory?

It is just laughable that you will pick and choose science as you pick and choose religious belief.

Yes I believe neanderthals went extinct during the global flood why do you say they went extinct ?

It’s convenient, of course, to pick and choose those elements of science, religion, reality, etc., that you choose to believe and discard the rest but that is a prescription for a mal-formed personality.

How do you reconcile cutting and pasting articles you believe support your argument when those same articles dismantle your argument?

 

[Hollie]

Dodge !

Your goofy comment was an angry, juvenile pejorative. You're angry because you have contradicted your own arguments. Lashing out in such a fashion only serves to demonstrate your own failure at maintaining a consistent argument.

You once again dodged my question.

Ypu didn't pose a question. You posted "dodge" to a comment of mine you hoped to avoid addressing.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?

List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They were a sub-species, as noted earlier. How did Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens exist together 50,000 years ago?

According to who ? and why are they considered a sub species ?

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

Do a search. That's your homework assignment.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will admit to playing the game of "bait the fundie" in anticipation of your frantic cutting and pasting.

For your edification, Neanderthals are typically classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of humans, ie: Hono Sapiens.

This obviously presents yet another insurmountable contradiction for the creationist. Why would the gawds "design" a virtually identical, functioning human-like competitor to Hono Sapiens?

Further, the two articles you linked to, (ignoring the ridiculous ICR babble), make reference to timeframes for Neanderthals that are directly in contradiction to your insistence for a 6000 year old earth. Did you realize that you destroyed the very foundation of the tales and fables you insist delineate a young earth, magical creation of humanity, the global flood, etc.?

I don't care that they were once classified not human through ignorance as a different species What I care about is were they human or not ? it is clear they were. Evolutionist use to make the same claim about the african people claimed they were less evolved because they had different features.

Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory.

Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory?

You're making less sense than usual. It's obvious you're angry and embarrassed because you have inadvertently destroyed your young earth creationist argument - and done so in rather dramatic fashion.

Why would you suddenly lash out at evolutionist when you have linked to sites that present information based on evolutionary data. It seems creationist have a habit of bluster and contradiction which is laughable in that it is self-refuting.

Evolutionist were and are bigots. Claiming black Africans and Aborigines of Australia were less evolved when in reality they are human. Funny the Aborigines skull is really close to a neanderthal skull except the neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity.

So are Aborigines human ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your goofy comment was an angry, juvenile pejorative. You're angry because you have contradicted your own arguments. Lashing out in such a fashion only serves to demonstrate your own failure at maintaining a consistent argument.

You once again dodged my question.

Ypu didn't pose a question. You posted "dodge" to a comment of mine you hoped to avoid addressing.

I put dodge because you ignored the question get it ?

 

[Hollie]

I don't care that they were once classified not human through ignorance as a different species What I care about is were they human or not ? it is clear they were. Evolutionist use to make the same claim about the african people claimed they were less evolved because they had different features.

Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory.

Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory?

You're making less sense than usual. It's obvious you're angry and embarrassed because you have inadvertently destroyed your young earth creationist argument - and done so in rather dramatic fashion.

Why would you suddenly lash out at evolutionist when you have linked to sites that present information based on evolutionary data. It seems creationist have a habit of bluster and contradiction which is laughable in that it is self-refuting.

Evolutionist were and are bigots. Claiming black Africans and Aborigines of Australia were less evolved when in reality they are human. Funny the Aborigines skull is really close to a neanderthal skull except the neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity.

So are Aborigines human ?

That makes no sense.

You're simply playing a cheap and long ago dismissed angle that has been a staple of christian creationist which attempts to align evolution (Darwinism), with racism. Is christianity so morally bankrupt that you have to seize on that tired and worn out history?

 

[Hollie]

You once again dodged my question.

Ypu didn't pose a question. You posted "dodge" to a comment of mine you hoped to avoid addressing.

I put dodge because you ignored the question get it ?

You still don't get it.

You have repeatedly attempted to dodge the issue of your linking Neanderthals and Humans as co-existing some 50,000 years ago. It is referenced in the article you posted.

How does that timeframe reconciled with a 5000 year old earth? Or, is this more of your subjective pick and choose methodology wherein you reject facts that conflict with your biblical tales and fables.

 

[Hollie]

I thought it was worth educating you on some history regarding your hero, Henry Morris of the ICR, himself, something of a rascist and to educate you on some recent history of christianity and ties to rascism.


CA005: Evolution and racism

Claim CA005:

Evolution promotes racism.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.


Response:

1. When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

2. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.

3. Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.

4. Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.

5. Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.

6. Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:

• George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote, The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat And scorched his hair with its tropic heat, And his mind became a blank.

In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).

• During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught .

The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).


The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).

• The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.

• Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).


7. None of this matters to the science of evolution.

Links:

Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? Creationism Implies Racism?
References:
1. Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. It's Official! Racism is an Integral Part of Creationist Dogma
2. Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
3. Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
4. Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.


Further Reading:
Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.

Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolutionist are bigots because of their theory?

You're making less sense than usual. It's obvious you're angry and embarrassed because you have inadvertently destroyed your young earth creationist argument - and done so in rather dramatic fashion.

Why would you suddenly lash out at evolutionist when you have linked to sites that present information based on evolutionary data. It seems creationist have a habit of bluster and contradiction which is laughable in that it is self-refuting.

Evolutionist were and are bigots. Claiming black Africans and Aborigines of Australia were less evolved when in reality they are human. Funny the Aborigines skull is really close to a neanderthal skull except the neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity.

So are Aborigines human ?

That makes no sense.

You're simply playing a cheap and long ago dismissed angle that has been a staple of christian creationist which attempts to align evolution (Darwinism), with racism. Is christianity so morally bankrupt that you have to seize on that tired and worn out history?

It's a fact, that is what they and it created racism towards blacks. Still dodging questions hollie ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ypu didn't pose a question. You posted "dodge" to a comment of mine you hoped to avoid addressing.

I put dodge because you ignored the question get it ?

You still don't get it.

You have repeatedly attempted to dodge the issue of your linking Neanderthals and Humans as co-existing some 50,000 years ago. It is referenced in the article you posted.

How does that timeframe reconciled with a 5000 year old earth? Or, is this more of your subjective pick and choose methodology wherein you reject facts that conflict with your biblical tales and fables.

Nope, I don't and never did buy in to the dating methods used by man and don't believe humans existed 50,000 years ago,but you knew that didn't you ?

 

[Hollie]

Evolutionist were and are bigots. Claiming black Africans and Aborigines of Australia were less evolved when in reality they are human. Funny the Aborigines skull is really close to a neanderthal skull except the neanderthal had a larger cranial capacity.

So are Aborigines human ?

That makes no sense.

You're simply playing a cheap and long ago dismissed angle that has been a staple of christian creationist which attempts to align evolution (Darwinism), with racism. Is christianity so morally bankrupt that you have to seize on that tired and worn out history?

It's a fact, that is what they and it created racism towards blacks. Still dodging questions hollie ?

It's not a fact. You presented only your own bigoted and racist view.

Still dodging questions, aren't you.

 

[Hollie]

I put dodge because you ignored the question get it ?

You still don't get it.

You have repeatedly attempted to dodge the issue of your linking Neanderthals and Humans as co-existing some 50,000 years ago. It is referenced in the article you posted.

How does that timeframe reconciled with a 5000 year old earth? Or, is this more of your subjective pick and choose methodology wherein you reject facts that conflict with your biblical tales and fables.

Nope, I don't and never did buy in to the dating methods used by man and don't believe humans existed 50,000 years ago,but you knew that didn't you ?

You can pick and choose as you wish. It is, however, comical that you post links to articles which dismantle the very argument you're hoping to further.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I thought it was worth educating you on some history regarding your hero, Henry Morris of the ICR, himself, something of a rascist and to educate you on some recent history of christianity and ties to rascism.


CA005: Evolution and racism

Claim CA005:

Evolution promotes racism.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.


Response:

1. When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

2. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.

3. Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.

4. Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.

5. Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.

6. Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:

• George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote, The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat And scorched his hair with its tropic heat, And his mind became a blank.

In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).

• During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught .

The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).


The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).

• The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.

• Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).


7. None of this matters to the science of evolution.

Links:

Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? Creationism Implies Racism?
References:
1. Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. It's Official! Racism is an Integral Part of Creationist Dogma
2. Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
3. Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
4. Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.


Further Reading:
Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.

Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.

Let's educate you.

Harvard Student Says Blacks Genetically Inferior | Grow The Heck Up

Evolutionary racism











Adolf Hitler was an evolutionary racist.[1]
Evolutionary racism refers to a racist philosophy based on Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory. It assumes that men have continually evolved, and thus some races are more evolved than others. It replaces Christian morality with the atheistic "survival of the fittest." An example of evolutionary racism is when an evolutionary racist put Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo in the monkey house.[2]





Contents
[hide] 1 Origin
2 Racist influence
3 Hitler and evolutionary racist genocide
4 Josef Mengele
5 Present impact 5.1 Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history

6 Further Reading
7 See also
8 References


Origin

Evolution establishes a "scientific" rationale for racism by extending the "great chain of being" to humanity. Just as animal species are ordered into a hierarchy according development, so too the "races of men" are described as being more or less developed than others.

Evolutionists then extend the doctrine of survival of the fittest to humanity. Removing religious morality and replacing it with the laws of nature, they claim that just as the varieties of animals struggle to survive, so shall the varieties of man, with the strong dominating and destroying the weak.

Darwin himself was a racist and white supremacist. He predicted mass genocide from his theory, claiming:



“

At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.[3]

”


Likewise he compared native populations to animals:



“

The difference between a Tierra del Fuegian and a European is greater than between a Tierra del Fuegian and a beast[4]

”


Racist influence

Darwin's writings, which became very influential in the late 19th century, provided an argument for racism. Harvard University's staunch evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."[5] Stephen Gould also admitted the following about the atheist Ernst Haeckel:



“

Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78). [6]

”


Social Darwinism and evolutionary racism allowed "human zoos" to proliferate in the late 1800s, wherein a supposed evolutionary progression of humans - from apes, to Africans, to West Europeans - were placed in a line. African and other tribal populations were routinely described as more akin to savage primates than Europeans.

Hitler and evolutionary racist genocide

For more information please see: Social effects of the theory of evolution

Darwin's evolutionary racism would have enormous impact in early 20th century, eventually leading to eugenics programs (first devised by Darwin's cousin Francis Galton) in American and Europe, and also influencing Adolf Hitler.






The staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following:



“

[Ernst] Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).[7]

”


Robert E.D. Clark in his work Darwin: Before and After wrote concerning Hitler's evolutionary racism:



“

The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts 'to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile' (Mein Kampf). [8]

”


Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:



“

The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.[9]

”


Dr. Robert E.D. Clark wrote in his work Darwin, Before and After the following regarding Hitler and the theory of evolution: “Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches”.[10]





Richard Dawkins is a prominent atheist and evolutionist. Richard Dawkins stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[11]
Richard Hickman in his work Biocreation concurs and wrote the following:



“

It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society. [12]

”


Noted evolutionary anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith conceded the following in regards to Hitler: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”.[10]

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Marilynne Robinson wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s magazine:



“

While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in Europe, it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.
[Richard] Dawkins deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of ... an insane and unscientific eugenics theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.

There is indeed historical precedent in the Spanish Inquisition for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.[13][14]

”


Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."[15] The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."[16]

Josef Mengele





Josef Mengele
For more information see: Josef Mengele

Josef Mengele (1911 - 1979) was a German physician and researcher who perpetrated the Holocaust in the Auschwitz death camp. Mengele had obtained a Ph.D. based on the study of racial differences in the anatomy of the jaw. He was one of the greatest supporters of Nazi theories of racial superiority with questionable research claims. Dr. Josef Mengele's evolutionary thinking was in accordance with social Darwinist theories that Adolph Hitler and a number of German academics found appealing.[17] Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought.[18] Mengele strongly supported the murder of the physically and mentally disabled. Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with Nazi death camps and the Holocaust.[19] Dr. Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at Auschwitz-Birkenau.[20] He was known as the "Angel of Death."

He performed experiments on humans in the concentration camps attempting to prove that disease was the product of racial inferiority and in order to genetically engineer a new species, which was the aim of his organization, the Frankfurt based Institute of Hereditary Biology and Racial Hygiene. He amputated healthy limbs and performed other unusual operations on prisoners.

Present impact

While the concept of "race" has since been proven by biology to be nonsense, Evolutionary Racism remains very strong amongst bigoted white supremacist groups, who continue to see race in evolutionary terms and believe in the superior advancement of western "races".

Racism remains common among evolutionists, despite attempts to hide it:



“

Many of the early settlers of Australia considered the Australian Aborigines to be less intelligent than the ‘white man,’ because aborigines had not evolved as far as whites on the evolutionary scale. In fact, the Hobart Museum in Tasmania in 1984 listed this as one of the reasons why early white settlers killed as many aborigines as they could in that state.

”




—Ken Ham, Evolution: The Lie (1987), p. 86.


In addition, evolutionary racism was directed at Michelle Obama.[21]

Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa's comments about black women and African history

Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics. Dr. Kanazawa publishes a blog on the Psychology Today website called The Scientific Fundamentalist.

In 2011, Dr. Kanazawa published the following inappropriate comment which was later pulled by the Psychology Today website:



“

It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others.[22]

”


Kanazawa has a "Savanna principle" hypothesis which speculates that societal problems are due to the human brain supposedly evolving in Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago in a very different environment from modern society.[23]

Further Reading
Richard Weikart, Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress ISBN 978-0-230-61807-7
Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany ISBN 9781403972019

See also
Social effects of the theory of evolution
Atheism and Mass Murder
Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality
Atheism and Uncharitableness
Causes of Atheism
Theory of evolution and liberalism

Evolutionary racism - Conservapedia



http://www.geocentricity.com/creationism/racism_in_evolution.pdf

 

[Hollie]

I thought it was worth educating you on some history regarding your hero, Henry Morris of the ICR, himself, something of a rascist and to educate you on some recent history of christianity and ties to rascism.


CA005: Evolution and racism

Claim CA005:

Evolution promotes racism.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.


Response:

1. When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

2. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.

3. Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.

4. Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.

5. Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.

6. Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:

• George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote, The poor little fellow who went to the south Got lost in the forests dank; His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat And scorched his hair with its tropic heat, And his mind became a blank.

In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).

• During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught .

The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).


The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).

• The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.

• Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).


7. None of this matters to the science of evolution.

Links:

Trott, Richard and Jim Lippard, 2003. Creationism implies racism? Creationism Implies Racism?
References:
1. Esterhuysen, Amanda and Jeannette Smith, 1998. Evolution: 'the forbidden word'? South African Archaeological Bulletin 53: 135-137. Quoted from Stear, J., 2004. It's official! Racism is an integral part of creationist dogma. It's Official! Racism is an Integral Part of Creationist Dogma
2. Moore, R., 2004. (see below)
3. Morris, Henry M., 1976. The Genesis Record: A Scientific and Devotional Commentary on the Book of Beginnings. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers.
4. Numbers, Ronald L., 1992, The Creationists, New York: Knopf.


Further Reading:
Mayr, Ernst, 2000. Darwin's influence on modern thought. Scientific American 283(1) (Jul.): 78-83.

Moore, Randy, 2004. The dark side of creationism. The American Biology Teacher 66(2): 85-87.

How strange that you would include Hitler as a racist. Hitler and Nazi ideology were closely linked with christianity.

 

[Hollie]

More of the wonderful christians leading the charge into the Dark Ages.




Creationism Gets a Dash of Anti-Semitism

Creationism Gets a Dash of Anti-Semitism | Southern Poverty Law Center

Do you think the theory of evolution is a Satanic plot to bring about the New World Order? Are you worried that Darwin's idea produced "Communism, Socialism, Naziism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age Movement?" Then Dr. Kent Hovind is for you.

Hovind, who runs the Creation Science Evangelism ministry from Pensacola, Fla., says the whole Bible is literally true and that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. While that may seem par for the creationist course, Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books like Fourth Reich of the Rich and has recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book blaming the world's problems on a Jewish conspiracy.

Environmentalism and income taxes, Hovind says, are designed to destroy the United States and "bring it under Communism." "Democracy," he says, "is evil and contrary to God's law."

Every religion has fundamentalists bordering on extremism; Hovind is notable for his wide reception and for his promulgating of conspiracy theories favored by the antigovernment "Patriot" movement.

 

[Hollie]

Creationism and Racism

Creationism Implies Racism?

Tom McIver, an anthropologist who has written several articles forCreation/Evolution, NCSE Reports, and the Skeptical Inquirer, as well as the book Anti-Evolution: An Annotated Bibliography, has a book on creationism that will be published by the Univ. of California Press. Chapter 15 of the book is titled "Creationism and Racism," and the history of connections between creationism and racism. A shorter version of the chapter will be published in a future issue of Skeptic magazine (probably the issue after next, i.e., vol. 2, no. 4).

Anyway, I wanted to share some of it here. McIver begins with a bunch of quotes from creationists who maintain that racism comes from belief in evolution--Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Bert Thompson, Malcolm Bowden, etc.--it's a pretty long list. This part really caught my eye, though:
"Evolution and racism are the same thing," declares Jerry Bergman (McIver 1990:21; see Bergman's "Evolution and the Development of Nazi Race Policy" in Bible-Science Newsletter [1988] and articles in Creation Research Society Quarterly [1980], CSSHQ [1986], and Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal [1991, 1992]).[2]

[2] Bergman has been featured in many creationist publications for his complaint that he was denied tenure and dismissed from Bowling Green State University "solely because of my beliefs and publications in the area of creationism"; a cover story, for instance, in the Creation Science Legal Defense Fund's magazine Creation ("The Jerry Bergman Story," 1984). In Bergman's The Criterion (preface by Wendell Bird, foreword by John Eidsmoe), Luther Sunderland said Bergman was fired "solely" because of his religious beliefs--his creationism (1984:64). But in a signed letter published in David Duke's National Association of White People newsletter, Bergman stated that "reverse [racial] discrimination was clearly part of the decision"--i.e., that it was not solely religious discrimination (Bergman 1985:2).

McIver goes on to look at the racism that arises from a particular interpretation of Noah's three sons and the curse on Ham, from polygenism (inferior pre-Adamite people), connections with the Ku Klux Klan, Anglo-Israelism, and the Christian Identity movement, etc. Some interesting points of connection:

• Prominent fundamentalists connected with the KKK: Bob Shuler, Billy Sunday, and Bob Jones, Sr. (McIver says that "Perhaps 40,000 fundamentalist ministers joined the Klan.")

• Prominent creationists affiliated with Bob Jones University: Emmett Williams, former editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly and George Mulfinger, CRS board member.

• Gerald Winrod, founder of Defenders of the Christian Faith, published the "openly racist" magazine Defender, which published creationist articles by George McCready Price, W.B. Riley, and A.I. Brown. For a time, it also published Harry Rimmer's newsletter in its pages. (Riley was the leader of the World's Christian Fundamentals Association, a prominent fundamentalist group in the 1920's. He openly advocated white supremacy.)

• Charles Totten, the Yale military science instructor who came up with alleged calculations proving "Joshua's Missing Day" (later turned into an urban legend about NASA by Harold Hill), was also an advocate of British-Israelism (promoted in his journal Our Race) and a pyramidologist.

• James Gray, editor of the Moody Monthly and head of the Moody Bible Institute, was a firm believer in the genuineness of the anti-Semitic fraud Protocols of the Elders of Zion. When Henry Ford publicly apologized for a series of articles by A.J. Cameron (another British-Israelite) about the Protocols in Ford's Dearborn, Mich. newspaper, Gray claimed that Ford's apology was itself evidence of Jewish conspiracy.

• Jarah Crawford, a Vermont Assembly of God minister, claims that scientific creationism isn't creationist enough because it allows for evolution of races.

• Herman Otten, editor of Christian News, is now an advocate of Holocaust revisionism.

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie and daws why would neanderthals live among humans if they were not human ?

List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

neanderthals are not humans, if you are defining humans as homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. See that? Different name. It is that simple. Just understand that. please. you are trying to change reality to fit your viewpoint. it is pathetic. they are a hominid species, closely related to modern humans, and in fact, could be considered a sub-species, but they are not human, by definition. You wouldn't call a poodle a doberman, would you? same thing. I emplore you to find one scientist that believes they are.

No that is exactly what evolutionists do is put organisms in to classifications if they put the neanderthal in to a different group they can use that as evidence of evolution. Neanderthals are human and the more research that is done on this group they grow closer and closer to humans it's because they are human. Please point out something that is not found in humans that is found in neanderthals ?

So are you suggesting there are different breeds of humans ? A canine is a canine even though they look different. A human is a human even though they look a little different.

Neanderthals are humans that were discovered in neander valley Germany. What is so different about them that they are not human ?

So, you are claiming the classification system is conspiratorial? You are a constant source of facepalm. I don't even know why I bother with such astounding ignorance. Willful ignorance, actually.

Neanderthals are classified differently because they were separate from humans for a long time, and development distinct morphological traits. They left africa far before we did and lived in Europe until we met up with them again when we came out of africa many years later.

Btw, using the "breeds" analogy was exactly that. An A-N-A-L-O-G-Y, to help your dumbass understand.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_565174&feature=iv&src_vid=2kLSiE-eNjw&v=wj0qx56cwOw]The Sex Lives of Early Humans - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

neanderthals are not humans, if you are defining humans as homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthals are Homo Neanderthalensis. See that? Different name. It is that simple. Just understand that. please. you are trying to change reality to fit your viewpoint. it is pathetic. they are a hominid species, closely related to modern humans, and in fact, could be considered a sub-species, but they are not human, by definition. You wouldn't call a poodle a doberman, would you? same thing. I emplore you to find one scientist that believes they are.

No that is exactly what evolutionists do is put organisms in to classifications if they put the neanderthal in to a different group they can use that as evidence of evolution. Neanderthals are human and the more research that is done on this group they grow closer and closer to humans it's because they are human. Please point out something that is not found in humans that is found in neanderthals ?

So are you suggesting there are different breeds of humans ? A canine is a canine even though they look different. A human is a human even though they look a little different.

Neanderthals are humans that were discovered in neander valley Germany. What is so different about them that they are not human ?

So, you are claiming the classification system is conspiratorial? You are a constant source of facepalm. I don't even know why I bother with such astounding ignorance. Willful ignorance, actually.

Neanderthals are classified differently because they were separate from humans for a long time, and development distinct morphological traits. They left africa far before we did and lived in Europe until we met up with them again when we came out of africa many years later.

Btw, using the "breeds" analogy was exactly that. An A-N-A-L-O-G-Y, to help your dumbass understand.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_565174&feature=iv&src_vid=2kLSiE-eNjw&v=wj0qx56cwOw]The Sex Lives of Early Humans - YouTube[/ame]

The question is were they human or not ? A child that suffers from downs syndrome is that child considered a human, what classification would you put on that child ? are they another sub species of human ?

Your theory and the measuring stick for what constitutes a different species is just a little warped.