From: RFaussette@aol.com
Date: Mon Nov 17 2003 - 17:53:44 EST
In a message dated 11/17/03 1:17:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk writes:
This I took down from the Talkorigins website. It is similar to the old
Dutch Reformed (Much Deformed) Church stuff of 30 years ago to support
Apartheid. Some of the stuff I have from my sojourn there is pretty awful.
It is pretty sick isn't it? Now if my name was Ken Ham I would say every YEC
was a racist. But then I do base my ethics on Leviticus 19!!!.
Regards
Michael
*******************************************
Is the ICR's Henry Morris racist?
By Richard Trott
enry M. Morris, among many other creationists, has tried to discredit
evolutionary theory by arguing that evolution is a pillar of racism. For
example, in The Troubled Waters Of Evolution (1974), Morris writes (p. 164):
As the 19th century scientists were converted to evolution, they were thus
also convinced of racism. They were certain that the white race was superior
to other races, and the reason for this superiority was to be found in
Darwinian theory.
It is instructional to examine the following passage by Morris in that
light. [1] I should note first, however, that I personally don't believe
that Morris is a racist. Morris may have simply written this particular
passage somewhat more carelessly than he should have. Or it may reflect
views Morris once held years ago but no longer holds. Still, considering his
attempts to tie evolution to racism, it is quite interesting to see Morris,
in a creationist context, deal with race in a way that would give comfort to
racists. Morris's reactions to questions about this passage are also of
interest.
I ask, how could evolution possibly be a pillar of racism? The OT was
already a pillar of racism. Note:
“The land which you are entering and will possess is a polluted land,
polluted by the foreign population with their abominable practices, which have made
it unclean from end to end. Therefore do not give your daughters in marriage
to their sons, and do not marry your sons to their daughters, and never seek
their welfare or prosperity. Thus you will be strong and enjoy the good things
of the land, and pass it on to your children as an everlasting possession.”
ezra 9:11-13
I know that the liberal academia wants you to believe that "racism" began
with Christian European expansion, but that is false. In ancient
Mesopotamia, there were peoples who styled themselves "young men" or maryannu who
believed they were the only true humans. The Indo-Aryans of the vedas thought
the same thing. The Hebrews of the OT also as you can see above.
However, you can't make the charge of racism against Christian Europe stick
unless you overlook all the incidents of "racism" that you find throughout
history.
Evolution does not and has never proven the innate superiority of races.
Creationism proves the innate superiority of races. If creationism is
correct, races were created as they are and will remain. If there is an
inferior aspect of a "created race," and that race is unchanging in its genetic
attributes, that is real innate inferiority. But evolution says if you want tall
people and you raise selection stresses for tallness, over generations people
will be tall. since their genetic attributes can be modified under
natural selection, indicating that NO RACIAL DIFFERENCES ARE INNATE AND
PERMANENT BUT FLUID AND FLEXIBLE.
Since that is the case, evolution demonstrates the plasticity of racial
differences and proves the fallacy of an innate superiority or inferiority.
The reason race became such a large issue in the 19th century is because of
the Origin of Species and the slavery issue which was growing more acute as
European expansion opened up Africa and exposed industrializing europe
to africa's still tribal peoples. but to suggest that racism was caused by
either Christian European expansion and/or evolution is wrong.
MIchael wrote:
Morris concludes that this is not racist by invoking a strange definition of
racism. Somehow, if other human beings are responsible for the plight of a
group of people, that is racism; however, if someone (such as Morris) believes
that a general line of people (such as the Hamites) are "possessed of a genetic
character" that makes them innately less "intellectual,"
"philosophical," and "religious" than the other approximately two-thirds of
humanity, this is not racism.
Morris' position is the same as present day geneticists. races have
different genetic qualities that result from natural selection. That is NOT to say
races are inherently anything. since they are subject to selection, they
are plastic and not inherently superior or inferior.
rich faussette
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Nov 17 2003 - 17:54:39 EST