I hope that “all of us” includes the purportedly-existing supernatural beings that are, by some accounts, the ground of all existence. Some of those, with their “chosen people” and whatnot, really take the cake.
Maybe creationists often have, but as you know (you seem to be a fairly careful reader of the Bible), the Bible does not say or imply this. Creationists allegedly stick faithfully to the plain meaning of Scripture, and the plain meaning of Scripture is that God created only one human race. And while Scripture indicates that the single race, dubbed “Adam” in Genesis 1, gradually differentiated into distinct peoples, it never indicates that those differences are differences of inferiority or superiority. As for the “Curse of Ham” (which was actually a curse upon Canaan, though arising out of an action of Ham), in its original Biblical context it had nothing to do with “race” in the modern sense, since Noah, Ham, and Canaan (father, son, and grandson) would all have been of the same “race,” and neither Canaan nor his descendants, the Canaanites, would have looked like the slaves on the American plantations. What polemicists of the American South made of the Biblical passage is, of course, another matter. The explanation for that is sociological or political.
Darwin himself was an Abolitionist, yet there are remarks in his writings which suggest that he had the typical European sense of superiority of the European peoples. But even if we suppose that Darwin personally hadn’t an ounce of racism in his body, it doesn’t follow that some of his ideas couldn’t have had unintended racist consequences. This is the sort of thing that historians of ideas investigate.
As for racism in various Christian institutions and denominations, I don’t deny its existence, but its existence does not prove that the Bible itself taught racism, any more than the fact that many Christians over the centuries have committed murder and adultery proves that the Bible endorsed murder and adultery.
That’s true, and West knows this perfectly well. He is limiting his discussion to “scientific racism,” i.e., that variation of racism which claims that “science” supports racism. “Scientific racism” has existed since the 1800s, with champions in both Europe and America. West’s point is that when racists tried to defend their views based on “science” they often appealed to Darwinian notions (survival of the fittest and so on). Fortunately the scientific community in America eventually turned against racism and eugenics, but, West seems to be saying, that line of argument still surfaces every now and then, and we see it in the case of the shooter West is writing about.
Many ID proponents would agree with you. It’s important to note that the example West uses in the passage you quote is Michael Denton, who believes in full macroevolution without any miraculous interventions. When West says that Denton characterizes man as a “miracle”, he puts it in scare quotes; West knows that Denton does not believe in special divine interventions. (Discovery has, after all, published 6 of Denton’s books, so West is very familiar with Denton’s views.) What West means is that, for Denton, the number of anthropocentric coincidences in the cosmos (which make man possible) is so great as to amount to a “miracle”; man did not get here by accident, but by planning or design. Denton sees the evolutionary process (cosmic and biological) as designed to produce man or something very like man. West is contrasting this with the view (held by Monod, Coyne, Dawkins, Myers, Krauss, Provine, etc.) that man appeared only due to accident. For the classical exposition of the “accidental” view, in philosophical terms, see the essay “A Free Man’s Worship” by Bertrand Russell.
When I first read Denton’s book, Nature’s Destiny, I was struck by how well it tracked, point by point, with the view of the history of the universe and life set forth in Carl Sagan’s books (which I had devoured with delight in my youth), with the main difference being that Sagan apparently believed that this history was the result of accident, i.e., was not planned by any mind, whereas Denton thought the overall trajectory indicated a design or plan.
One of the problems that bedevils ID is that it sometimes fails to stick to its own core insight. That core insight is that the origins discussion needs to shift from “creation vs. evolution” to “design vs. chance.” When the framing is “design vs. chance,” it become possible to accept “evolution” (understood as common descent) alongside an intelligent designer. But since so many ID proponents are anti-common-descent, ID arguments often end up sounding not merely anti-chance but anti-evolution. This the problem with the “big tent” nature of ID, which embraces both evolutionist and anti-evolutionist positions. So people will take a YEC ID proponent as representative of ID, and will overlook people like Denton and Behe who accept common descent.
This comes back to the reason why I prefer books to ENV editorials. Since ID is a big tent movement and Discovery is an institution which has to do justice to the big tent, ENV cannot speak as clearly as individual ID authors can. But if one reads Denton or Behe, one can see that some ID proponents believe in both God and evolution, even if, regarding the mechanisms of evolution, they have some differences with mainstream accounts. I always prefer reading the position of authors to the position of collectives. I would much rather hear what individual scientists have to say than some summary of what “Science” (capital S) supposedly says.
2 Likes
I would put it differently. I would say that an intellectual (a word I don’t like, but I’ll take it as a blanket term covering scientists and scholars generally) should try to find out what is true. And the best way of doing that is to (at least at first) keep all options on the table, including options that some people (religious or anti-religious) don’t find very palatable.
There is no indication in the Bible that Israel was chosen because of any intrinsic superiority to other peoples, so I don’t see the relevance of the comment.
Read the quotation attributed to the Harvard professor. That has to be tongue-in-cheek, unless you know a Harvard professor who would agree with the sentiment expressed.
I don’t disagree, but my point was that a book written by a scientist on a specifically scientific topic is more likely to give a purely scientific exposition than an editorial written by an advocacy organization which has not only scientific but social and political concerns in mind.
Which human beings, male or female, or of whatever skin-tone, are not made in the image of God, according to Genesis 1?
1 Like
Thanks for that background on Denton and this explanation of the breadth of ID beliefs. I don’t actually track them that closely. This “big tent” image explains why I’ve been confused by what exactly they espouse. I guess there are some conflicts in the various points they make because different people have different views. I’ve noticed some conservative Christians who are seem to be anti-evolution/anti-common decent embrace Behe, and then wonder if they understand that a lot of what Behe says supports common decent, which has also made me wonder what point Behe is actually trying to make with all his books: what is his aim? He has been really successful in becoming popular among conservative Christians
1 Like
Which I myself mentioned in the preceding sentence.
This seems rather weak as a defence of the DI’s continued attempts to link evolution to racism. Even if the writer of Matthew was not an anti-Semite, Matthew 27:25 - where the Jews take on the blame for Jesus’ death - has almost certainly contributed to Christian anti-semitism.
I did not claim that it did. My point was that their belief in creation did not even prevent them from incorporating racism into their religious beliefs - in some cases even using - or abusing - the Bible as support for their position. Surely this is sufficient to call Wells’ claim into question.
6 posts were split to a new topic: Technical Questions
I don’t think we are disagreeing here except in emphasis.
Agreed.
It may well have, but there is an even better example for “may have contributed to anti-Semitism” – the Gospel of John, in which the phrase “the Jews” pops up all over the place, used in a way that in retrospect looks very dangerous. Did the writer intend anti-Semitism as we understand it? Probably not. Could his use of the phrase have contributed to anti-Semitism? It certainly could have.
If your point is that a text may be used for purposes which its author never intended, we are in agreement. If your point is that West is doing that with Darwin, I’ve already agreed with others here that his title could be read in that way, and that I would not have used that title. Possibly some other phrases in the article were unguarded as well. But he did explicitly speak of the shooter “misusing” Darwin’s ideas, so he’s not unaware of the danger you have pointed out.
I think there’s little point in belaboring this ENV editorial any further. I just don’t think ENV editorials are all that important; I don’t think they are widely read by the general public, beyond the already converted, so I don’t think they change very many people’s minds. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that some reputable survey shows that as of last month, 25% of Americans think that Darwin’s ideas have helped to generate racism. How much will West’s new editorial, given that it will be mostly read by people already counted in the 25%, change that number? Will the number rise to 25.003%? I just think there are bigger fish to fry. So don’t be surprised if I don’t respond further on this topic.
My central point was that West’s assertion that believers in creation were less likely to be racist than believers in evolution was not supported by evidence or reason.
Add that West is willing to excuse political allies who are actually promoting racist ideas (Tucker Carlson in particular) and you don’t get the picture of someone who actually cares about opposing racism.
Not to mention the attack on the lockdown, which likely saved many lives.
It must be said that ENV is much nastier than The Panda’s Thumb. It may not have much effect - beyond encouraging regrettable attitudes in the already convinced. But even there it seems far worse than the science West attacks.
4 Likes
“If humans truly evolved through a blind and accidental process that did not have them in mind, it’s not much of a jump to believe that some human populations must have evolved in ways superior to other human populations. Thus, a tendency toward racism was sort of built-in to evolutionary theory from the get-go.”
Whereas if humans truly evolved through a designed and guided protest, there must be some reason why some human populations were fashioned to be different from other human populations. Thus, a tendency toward racism was sort of built-in to intelligent design theory from the get-go.
That’s a pretty unconvincing sort of “sort of”, but exactly the same in both arguments.Where evolution is dominant, racists will use evolution. Where creation is dominant, racists will use arguments based on racism. This is all familiar stuff, as I may have mentioned before: https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2019/04/01/creationism-noahs-flood-and-race/
3 Likes
I don’t know that PT is like now, but in the past it could often get quite nasty. Pretty well everyone with a furious hatred of ID congregated there. Maybe it became less nasty when other outlets for bellicose anti-ID sentiment became available (e.g., BioLogos, Skeptical Zone), and the most militant people took their travelling act to those sites. This happened also to BioLogos itself, which became less bellicose overall when several of the most belligerent people moved to – other places. In any case, these things do tend to change over time. One of the best origins sites, Telic Thoughts, is long gone, and both the BioLogos Forum and Uncommon Descent are now pretty much non-factors in rational origins discussion, with Peaceful Science and Hump of the Camel offering more substantive origins discussions than either, though Hump of the Camel has increasingly moved its focus to social and political and theological questions (while still remaining substantive in content in those areas, and highly recommended).
Testing – trying to replicate error that erases all text in window.
I will try typing and then hitting the Menu key – nope, no effect.
How about Control with a period? Nope, no effect.
I’m stumped.d.
I guess the only safe way is to type all messages in a word processor, then copy and paste. In a word processor, you can undo the last keystroke, so you don’t have to know what the error was to fix it.
Even if the Panda’s Thumb was worse in the past that doesn’t mean it was ever as bad as ENV.
Oh, I don’t know. It’s very easy to run a website that is peaceful, tidy and harmonious if no comments are allowed and there is rigid enforcement of the rule that only one viewpoint can be expressed.
4 Likes
This is exactly right.
It’s critical that the pushback by secular scientists doesn’t attempt to locate racism with religion. Rather racism is one of those sins that is adept at co-opting both religion and science to gain authority towards racist ends.
Racism, therefore, requires a coherent scientific and religious response, not exploitative racebaiting in the origin wars.
4 Likes
I agree with this. People who want to find a justification for their racism will always be able to find one.
West seems to be saying on the one hand, that belief in evolution will not necessarily make a person into a racist, but on the other hand, that belief in evolution does make assertions which are easily used by racists, and that this might be a problem. I think everyone here agrees with his first point, but that many people here disagree with his second point. I don’t think he makes a very tight argument for his second point, and I have no interest in defending the entire article, any more than I do in defending the title – I was interested only in pointing out, in the interest of fairness, some things that he didn’t say – so I’m happy to leave the rest of the discussion of West to others.
More interesting to me than the discussion of West’s argument is the Bible. Genesis makes clear that all human beings are in the image of God, and also makes clear that all human beings are of one family, with Africans, Europeans, and Asians of a wide variety of physical features (see Genesis 10) all being descended from Noah. It’s not a natural reading of Genesis to come up with the idea that some of the peoples in the Table of Nations are genetically inferior to others. And even later on, when God permits Israel to invade and conquer other peoples in Canaan, the justification given is not that they are of different and inferior “races”, but that they are spiritually and morally unworthy of retaining the land, since they perform abominations. One might possibly criticize the Bible for many things, but I don’t think racism can be plausibly imputed to it.
I would say that West’s whole purpose is to smear evolution by associating it with racism. So far as I can tell West’s second point is not especially true of evolution - and is at least equally true of the Bible. Not to mention the fact that West denies the responsibility of Tucker Carlson who really is promoting dangerous racist ideas.
Aside from the fact that the Table of Nations really only covers people known by the Israelites. Not to mention the fact that Christians have had no problem coming up with other ideas which supported racist views (e.g pre-Adamites, descendants of Cain).
On the other hand evolution makes it clear that humans are all one species, not especially diverse genetically, and gives no reason to think that advantageous genes would stay within one single “race” (the more so since the usual ideas of race are not really based in biology).
I refer you back to the Curse of Ham which claims that Canaanites are cursed to be slaves to the Israelites. Let us also consider that the (supposed) genocides made no allowance for personal actions - entire peoples were condemned to death.
If you restrict racism to genetics perhaps. But racism is not restricted to genetics, Even the idea of a “chosen people” is arguably racist - the Israelites are given a favoured position (and expect to dominate - but not rule) the world in the future. The Israelite law gives more favourable treatment to Israelites over other peoples.
To go further, evolution is not accused of being racist, but of making “assertions easily used by racists” - and applying that standard to the Bible, as you have agreed, is quite clearly problematic. Arguably more so than evolution.
5 Likes
Partly because evolution doesn’t make assertions at all.
1 Like
I’m done talking about the West article, but will clarify some things regarding the Bible.
I don’t understand your meaning here. I was speaking of the natural reading of the Bible, not what some Christians, paying little attention to the details of the Bible, might have imagined. As for the view that there were pre-Adamites, it was not the orthodox Christian view, and was endorsed only by a few at the margins; the standard view, taught clearly by Augustine, was monogenesis – there never were any human beings who were not descended from Adam and Eve. And the fact that Cain had descendants doesn’t logically produce racism, unless you add in a view that there is something bad in the “seed” of Cain that makes his descendants inferior (stupider, slower, not as muscular, not as handsome, not as talented, etc.). In fact, Cain’s descendants seem somewhat superior to the descendant of Seth, in worldly terms, inventing music, metal tools, etc.
Who uttered the curse of Ham? Not God, but Noah. Slavery isn’t a divine ordinance, but something introduced into the world by man. And the reason for the slavery is nothing to do any alleged “biological” differences between the line of Ham and the other lines; it’s the sexual impropriety (which the narrative is delicately vague about) of Ham, i.e., a moral failing. The narrative rails against those with moral or spiritual failings, not against those who have different colorations, hair curliness, etc. We don’t know much about Melchizedek, but he is king of Salem, which is usually identified with Jerusalem, and smack in the middle of Canaan, and he worships God, the maker of heaven and earth, and is implicitly praised by the Biblical narrator. The Bible thus indicates that people of the same place (and presumably of the same “racial” makeup) can be very different in character – undermining the spirit of racism, which treats people in accord with their ancestral group rather than their inner qualities.
You seem to be reading neither what I wrote earlier, or the Bible: the people were condemned not for their “race”, or for any characteristics that modern people think of as “biological”; they were condemned for their ethics and religion, for their “abominations”. The contamination that gripped them all was social or religious, not racial. The Bible could not care less what people looked like; it is concerned with what they worship. If they worship lust, wealth, power, or the created things of this world, it condemns them; if they worship the true God alone, it praises them.
They are not chosen to rule other peoples; they are chosen to be a beacon of light to other peoples. They were chosen to carry out a responsibility, not to enjoy a privilege. And the only physical “rule” they are given is over a relatively small strip of territory, compared with the size of other ancient empires. Further, even that limited rule is not a permanent inheritance based on some “natural” biological qualities they possess as a race ethnic group; it is conditional on their faithfulness to God’s laws. Time and again God threatens to smash Israel, or subject it to the rule of foreign princes, if they stray from true worship and his laws, and sometimes he carries out the threat, using kings of other “races” (such as the Babylonian king, who would be of a difference “race” in modern parlance) to punish them. In any case, the chosenness is never said to spring from any inherent biological characteristics of Israelites; the basis of God’s choosing is not racial.
1 Like
God is not responsible for the misuses of the stories in the Bible. Human beings are responsible for that. And if we move beyond the Hebrew Bible to the New Testament, Jesus says to make all men his disciples, not to exterminate them and take their land, or enslave them and make them pick cotton. The Americans of racist tendencies against Indigenous Americans and captured African blacks were not following the teaching of Jesus, but were cherry-picking isolated phrases and notions from the Bible to sustain racist views and territorial ambitions they held for non-Biblical reasons. They were using the Bible, not learning from it. This is of course not an uncommon human habit, of taking something noble and debasing it. It would appear that human beings, of all “races”, have a tendency to pervert what is wholesome. But this is not surprising, to those of us here who believe in the reality of “sin”.