Creationism Intelligent Design Racism Religion

At PJ Media: A response to religious claims made in Scientific American’s “denial of evolution is white supremacy” piece

Spread the love

Readers will recall that Scientific American recently published an op-ed by filmmaker Allison Hopper, offering the view that “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy.” We’ve heard from various commentators on it, including Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, who sees it as evidence that Scientific American is heading down the drain.

Now, at PJ Media, Paula Bolyard weighs in on some of Hopper’s explicitly religious claims:

I’m not here to debate the hows and whys of creationism. I’ll point you to Answers in Genesis for that. But I want to point out a couple of shameless strawmen in Hopper’s piece that discredit everything else she writes in this piece.

First, she says:

“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. Dark skin has a different, more problematic origin.”

That’s simply not true. There’s no “literal interpretation of the Christian Bible” that discusses skin color or an unbroken white lineage. While it’s true that some racists have made that claim, it’s completely without merit. All we’re told is that God created man and woman, Adam and Eve, in the Garden of Eden, “in his image”—”Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). Not in his physical image, of course, because God is spirit and not confined to a human body, but in a spiritual sense. God gives us intellect, the ability to love him and others, and free will to choose between good and evil. This has nothing to do with melanin.

Paula Bolyard, “Now Belief in Creationism Is ‘White Supremacy.’ News Flash: We Won’t Bow to Your Secular Idols” at PJ Media

Of course. Hopper was almost certainly making it up as she went along, trusting that few readers had spent much time on the relevant literature.

Incidentally, Bolyard quotes creationist leader Ken Ham saying “I defy Scientific American to find anything remotely resembling the nonsense claimed in this article on our websites, in our books, or in our presentations.” Spoiler: They won’t.

At his Facebook page, Ham Ken Ham adds, “Answers in Genesis is well known for teaching there are no “white” or “black” people, as all are shades of brown from the main skin pigment melanin. Also Adam and Eve were most likely middle brown with maximum genetic diversity.”

See also: At Scientific American: “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” Wow. Has the Darwin lobby hired itself a PR firm that recommended getting someone on board to accuse everyone who doubts Darwin of being a “white supremacist”? Quite simply, Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man is surely by far the most racist iconic document ever to be lauded by all the Right People! And getting someone to holler about “white supremacy” among Darwin doubters is, ahem, just a cheap shot, not a response to the stark raving racism in print of the actual document. Guys, try another one.

and

Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne speaks out on a SciAm op-ed’s claims that denial of evolution stems from white supremacy. It seems obvious, on reflection, that Hopper’s piece is a disastrously clumsy effort on the part of Scientific American to get Woke. Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne thinks the mag is not just circling the drain but “approaching the drainhole.” To the extent that the editors couldn’t find someone who at least gets basic facts right, he has a point.

2 Replies to “At PJ Media: A response to religious claims made in Scientific American’s “denial of evolution is white supremacy” piece

  1. 1
    chuckdarwin says:

    The “middle brown” pigmentation offered them some camouflage from T. Rex…. 😉

  2. 2
    Querius says:

    Nowadays, the media seems to believe that whatever they print must of necessity be “The Truth,” which can be modified as needed.

    They filter what people read by straining at gnats and swallowing camels. They’re very concerned that alternative narratives are allowed to exist, polluting the wonderful purity of their enforced consensus.

    -Q

Leave a Reply