When “following the science” meant joining the Nazis

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 30, 2021

Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design

3}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This is not an argument “ad Hitlerum”; merely a statement of fact.

And it is an important fact to keep in mind:

I’m still reeling at the stupidity of whoever at Scientific American decided to give a green light to publishing an article, “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy,” by Allison Hopper. The absurdity of tarring critics of Darwinism with racism boggles the mind — given how Darwin’s own legacy, down to today’s Alt-Right, is so tied up with racial pseudo-science, viciously denigrating Africans, African-Americans, and others. See, “On Evolution and Racism, Scientific American Goes to War Against the Truth.”
As a reminder of that historical reality, Evolution News has been republishing some of our past ample coverage on the theme. However, this had escaped me when it was first published: an essay at Tablet by Ohio State bioethicist Ashley K. Fernandes asking, “Why Did So Many Doctors Become Nazis?” Perhaps more so today than ever, there is a tendency to sanctify the medical profession, with the white coat serving as an icon of wisdom, compassion, and morality. But history offers a warning.
David Klinghoffer, “Following the Science, Doctors Joined the Nazis “In Droves”” at Evolution News and Science Today (July 28, 2021)

One possible explanation: The people at Scientific American were so full of themselves that they assumed that the only outcome of publishing a vicious and stupid article would be outrage at creationists.

The reality is that it finally gave all kinds of people — not just creationists — a chance to talk about Darwin’s white supremacy beliefs, something we had never been able to do before (because of the united elite bellowing that “Darwin opposed slavery!”). And then there is the role Darwinism played in Nazi dogma… They won’t be hearing the last of this any time soon.

But they put it on the table. We couldn’t have.

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

Comments

The true believers at Sci-Am felt some of their sacred cows being prodded and so put up a smoke screen to deflect attention. Fortunately, it back-fired, at least from our perspective. Evolution has always been one of their sacred cows - you may not question it! And now they have gone full-out woke, racism has become another one. Combine the two against your perceived enemy (i.e. most of us) and it feels like a win, even though there is no truth to it. Therefore they couldn't resist; once the author submitted the piece, the editors slavered over it and had to publish.Fasteddious_{August 3, 2021
August
08
Aug
3
03
2021
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT}

So Seversky overlooks the fact that Wilberforce, as a lonely 'voice in the wilderness', fought hard for 20 years until he, via Parliamentary political action, brought the slave trade to an end in England in 1807, because Wilberforce supposedly 'overlooked his countrymen'?? ,,, Really Seversky??? Others, including Abraham Lincoln himself, had a very different take on Wilberforce's character,
Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery - Eric Metaxas - November 13, 2007 Amazing Grace tells the story of the remarkable life of the British abolitionist William Wilberforce (1759-1833). This accessible biography chronicles Wilberforce's extraordinary role as a human rights activist, cultural reformer, and member of Parliament. At the center of this heroic life was a passionate twenty-year fight to abolish the British slave trade, a battle Wilberforce won in 1807, as well as efforts to abolish slavery itself in the British colonies, a victory achieved just three days before his death in 1833. Metaxas discovers in this unsung hero a man of whom it can truly be said: he changed the world. Before Wilberforce, few thought slavery was wrong. After Wilberforce, most societies in the world came to see it as a great moral wrong.,,, This account of Wilberforce's life will help many become acquainted with an exceptional man who was a hero to Abraham Lincoln and an inspiration to the anti-slavery movement in America. https://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Grace-William-Wilberforce-Campaign/dp/0061173886
Seversky also makes the outlandish claim that people who considered themselves to be quote unquote 'good Christians' committed 'atrocities' against the "native peoples of Africa, the Americas and Australasia". Seversky seems to have a very funny definition of what it really means to be a 'good Christian'. John Newton, a former 'slaver' who penned perhaps the most famous Christian hymn of all time, "Amazing Grace", did not consider himself a quote unquote 'good Christian' until he finally repented from the atrocities he had committed in the slave trade and fought against the slave trade. In fact, he was a direct inspiration for Wilberforce's subsequent abolition efforts.
The Former Slaver (John Newton) against Slavery Wilberforce, a Member of Parliament, was the nephew of one of Newton's London friends. Inspired by the former slave trader, and paralleling Newton's own conversion, Wilberforce began to question his role in life. Although Newton, then a lowly Olney curate, was convinced that Wilberforce was just another wealthy politician, he persuaded him to crusade for change and use his station in life and his powerful friends (including Prime Minister Pitt) to seek reform. One of the chief topics for such advocacy was abolition. In fact, Wilberforce wrote in his journal on October 28, 1787, that one of the two goals that had been set before him was "the suppression of the Slave Trade." - Library of Congress https://www.loc.gov/item/ihas.200149085/
Seversky, in his rush to portray Christianity as the greatest evil to ever befall mankind, also has a bad habit of completely overlooking the fact that the atrocities committed by supposedly 'good Christians' in the name of Christianity pale in comparison to the atrocities that were committed by 'good Darwinists' in the name of Darwinism. The greatest mass murderers of history, in fact, all considered themselves to be 'good Darwinists'.
Historian Paul Johnson is Darwin's Latest Biographer -- and a Pretty Devastating One - David Klinghoffer - October 14, 2012 Excerpt: "Both Himmler, head of the SS and Goebbels, the propaganda chief," were students of Darwin, ,,, Hitler apparently carried the theory of natural selection "to its logical conclusion." "Leading Communists," moreover, "from Lenin to Trotsky to Stalin and Mao Tse-tung" considered evolution "essential to the self-respect of Communists. ... Darwin provided stiffening to the scaffold of laws and dialectic they erected around their seizure of power." Even Stalin,, "had Darwin's 'struggle' and 'survival of the fittest' in mind" when murdering entire ethnic groups, as did Pol Pot,,, ,,the "emotional stew" Darwin built up in Origin played a major part in the development of the 20th century's genocides.,,, No one who is remotely thoughtful blames Charles Darwin "for millions of deaths." But to say, as Johnson does, that Darwin's theory contributed to the growth of a view of the world that in turn had horrendously tragic consequences -- well, that's obviously true, it did. We have documented this extensively here at ENV, as have historians including our contributor Richard Weikart (Hitler's Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, Socialist Darwinism: Evolution in German Socialist Thought from Marx to Bernstein). There is, or should be, nothing controversial about this (fact of history). http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/historian_paul_065281.html “One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species "A stronger race will oust that which has grown weak; for the vital urge, in its ultimate form, will burst asunder all the absurd chains of this so-called humane consideration for the individual and will replace it with the humanity of Nature, which wipes out what is weak in order to give place to the strong.” – Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf - pg 248 Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao – quotes - Foundational Darwinian influence in their political ideologies https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831 Atheism’s Body Count * It is obvious that Atheism cannot be true; for if it were, it would produce a more humane world, since it values only this life and is not swayed by the foolish beliefs of primitive superstitions and religions. However, the opposite proves to be true. Rather than providing the utopia of idealism, it has produced a body count second to none. With recent documents uncovered for the Maoist and Stalinist regimes, it now seems the high end of estimates of 250 million dead (between 1900-1987) are closer to the mark. The Stalinist Purges produced 61 million dead and Mao’s Cultural Revolution produced 70 million casualties. These murders are all upon their own people! This number does not include the countless dead in their wars of outward aggression waged in the name of the purity of atheism’s world view. China invades its peaceful, but religious neighbor, Tibet; supports N. Korea in its war against its southern neighbor and in its merciless oppression of its own people; and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge kill up to 6 million with Chinese support. All of these actions done “in the name of the people” to create a better world. https://www.scholarscorner.com/atheisms-body-count-ideology-and-human-suffering/
Perhaps Seversky, being the 'good Darwinist' that he is, should realize that people who in live in glass houses, as he does, should not throw stones? Verse and Music:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Celtic Woman - Amazing Grace (Official Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsCp5LG_zNE
bornagain77_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Racism is - and always has been - a human problem. It existed long before 1859. The atrocities perpetrated against the native peoples of Africa, the Americas and Australasia came from European colonists who almost certainly held themselves to be good Christians. They had no need of evolutionary theory. Their belief in the superiority of their culture and their religion was more than enough. Even the creationists favorite abolitionist William Wilberforce was not immune to the the cultural flaws that tainted Darwin
THE ATTITUDE OF WILLIAM WILBERFORCE AND THE EVANGELICALS TOWARD THE REFORM OF WORKING-CLASS CONDITIONS IN EARLY NINETEENTH-CENTURY ENGLAND Exiled in America in 1818, William Cobbett mentioned its advantages in a letter to Henry Hunt: "No Cannings, Liverpools, Castlereaghs, Eldons, Ellenboroughs, or Sidmouths. No bankers. No squeaking Wynnes. · No Wilberforces! Think of that! No Wilberforces!" Wilberforce was "an ugly epitome of the devil," according to another democrat, Francis Place, after the Peterloo debate. The substance of the charge was that the benevolence Wilberforce expended on African slaves and Indian savages, on everyone everywhere except in England, could have been better expended at home. Abolitionist and Evangelical, Wilberforce abhorred chattel-slavery abroad but tolerated wage-slavery in England. He was a hypocrite. More recently, commentators have noted the Evangelicals' "willful blindness," "atrophy of conscience," and "lukewarn-ness" toward the plight of the working man. Eric_Williams, for example, in Capitalism ~ Slavery (1944) cited the abolitionists for their_"reactionary" attitude toward domestic problems: Wilberforce supported the Corn Laws, sat on a secret committee which repressed working-class discontent in 1817, and thought the First Reform Bill too radical. G.R. Mellor countered in British Imperial Trusteeship (1951) that the severity of this censure was unwarranted: "In economic affairs the pendulum was swinging from the policy of State controls towards the doctrine of ·laissez-faire, ...and· economists were enunciating the 'iron law' of wages •••• Nor were the governing classes as a whole fully cognizant of the ghastly state of affairs •••• (T)he majority of the philanthropists were churchmen and •••• tended to stress moral and religious reformation •••• " The last point Ford K. Browm stressed in Fathers of the Victorians (1961), urging that it is not possible to bring against Wilberforce a charge "based on a more fundamental misunderstanding of his object and method" than to accuse him of indifference to his countrymen. Through the abolition campaign he served their··"best interests": anti-slavery removed from England the shameful blot of sin and inspired those who participated in it with diligence in promoting Christianity at home. Wilberforce's sole concern was the reform of infidelity. [ … ] The engine of Wilberforce's activity was Evangelical religion. Its fundamental tenet was the utter depravity of mankind, that mankind is justified in the sight of God &. faith alone. Of whomever He will, God maketh His instrument. There are the elect and the blind. The converted must make others good for edification. The Evangelical was concerned with no reform but the reform of vice and sin, and the infidelity that was the cause of vice and sin. The slave system rendered the Africans infidels: it must be extirpated. The trade wrought devastation in Africa, provoked wars, stimulated avarice and sensuality. In such soil the seeds of faith would not prosper. Uncivilized also would remain the West Indies, for the frequent introduction of new savages into the islands rendered it impossible to convert the old ones. Hence the abolition campaign. But what of slavery at home? Was the condition of England any more congenial to "true religion" than the condition of Africa? With the same enthusiasm he did chattel-slavery, should not a religious man have combatted wage-slavery? He did not because he believed poverty divinely ordained. The poor would always be with us. Blessed are the poor. Why this belief? Because in fact the poor always had been with us, and we perceived not the means to improve their lot. Furthermore, it was expedient for us to believe they must always be with us. If wage-slavery were not God-made but man-made, duty would demand its removal. The poor would cometh into their kingdom, and their kingdom would be of this world. Fundamental to Evangelicalism was the depravity of mankind, the universal sentence of eternal death imposed by the wrath of God, the consequent need of a Mediator, the duty and privilege of a full surrender of all to Christ. Not a system of morality, it was rather the enlistment of affections and passions in God'~ service--a religion of motives, not of works. The true Christian, Wilberforce declared in A Practical View (1797), knows that "holiness is not to PRECEDE his reconciliation to God and be its CAUSE; but to FOLLOW it, and be its EFFECT. That in short it is by FAITH IN CHRIST only that he is to be justified in the sight of God." Treacherous is the belief that "(i)t signifies little what a man believes; look to his practice." For the Evangelical morality is rigidly puritanical: nothing belongs to God but belongs to the Bible. Man is eternally reprobate. Christ is his Saviour. What madness is it, Wilberforce exclaimed, "to continue easy in a state in which a sudden call out of the world would consign me to everlasting misery, and that when eternal happiness is within my grasp!" "We have a spark of immortality within us. We are to endure forever and ever," stated Henry Thornton, next to Wilberforce the dominant figure at Clapham.
Seversky_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

There is one more 'scientific' claim that Hopper makes in her article.
In the Adam-and-Eve scenario, the Creator bestows both physical and cultural humanity on the first people. From the get-go Adam knows how to name the animals. No one has to invent language or figure out how to make tools. Science, of course, tells us otherwise. The process of natural selection shaped our bodies and capacities. Our humanity emerged over the millennia as creative ancient people figured out the crucial skills—from storytelling to cooking to rope making—that we now take for granted.
Since Hopper explicitly stated that "Science, of course, tells us otherwise", I'm guessing that Hopper holds her belief that language emerged gradually to be an unquestionable, and rigidly established, 'scientific' fact? And also holds the belief that language appeared abruptly in the first people to simply be creationists' nonsense? But alas for Hopper, much like her understanding of the "Christian Bible', her understanding of the actual science has much to be desired. The scientific evidence itself, directly contrary to what Hopper believes, points to the abrupt appearance of language in the first people and not to the gradual appearance of language as she falsely believes. As Ian Tattersall, emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History, stated, "there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.”
“A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense.” Dr. Ian Tattersall: – paleoanthropologist – emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History – (Masters of the Planet, 2012)
And as the following research article stated, "modern-style iconic and representational activities (Henshilwood et al., 2002, 2004) begin only significantly after the first anatomically recognizable H. sapiens appears at a little under 200 thousand years ago,,"
The mystery of language evolution - May 7, 2014 Excerpt: Paleontology and archaeology,,, Although technologies became more complex over the history of the genus Homo (Tattersall, 2012), indications of modern-style iconic and representational activities (Henshilwood et al., 2002, 2004) begin only significantly after the first anatomically recognizable H. sapiens appears at a little under 200 thousand years ago,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4019876/
Moreover, in 2014, a who’s who list of leading ‘Darwinian’ experts in this area of language research, authored a paper in which they stated, "Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,"
Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) Casey Luskin added: “It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
And as Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at MIT, stated in 2019, "The human language faculty is a species-specific property, with no known group differences and little variation. There are no significant analogues or homologues to the human language faculty in other species.5,,, How far back does language go? There is no evidence of significant symbolic activity before the appearance of anatomically modern humans 200 thousand years ago (kya).22,,, There is no evidence that great apes, however sophisticated, have any of the crucial distinguishing features of language and ample evidence that they do not.48 Claims made in favor of their semantic powers, we might observe, are wrong. Recent research reveals that the semantic properties of even the simplest words are radically different from anything in animal symbolic systems.49,,,"
The Siege of Paris - Robert Berwick & Noam Chomsky - March 2019 Excerpt: Linguists told themselves many stories about the evolution of language, and so did evolutionary biologists; but stories, as Richard Lewontin rightly notes, are not hypotheses, a term that should be “reserved for assertions that can be tested.”4 The human language faculty is a species-specific property, with no known group differences and little variation. There are no significant analogues or homologues to the human language faculty in other species.5,,, How far back does language go? There is no evidence of significant symbolic activity before the appearance of anatomically modern humans 200 thousand years ago (kya).22,,, There is no evidence that great apes, however sophisticated, have any of the crucial distinguishing features of language and ample evidence that they do not.48 Claims made in favor of their semantic powers, we might observe, are wrong. Recent research reveals that the semantic properties of even the simplest words are radically different from anything in animal symbolic systems.49,,, Why only us?,,, We were not, of course, the first to ask them. We echo in modern terms the Cartesian philosophers Antoine Arnauld and Claude Lancelot, seventeenth-century authors of the Port-Royal Grammar, for whom language with its infinite combinatorial capacity wrought from a finite inventory of sounds was uniquely human and the very foundation of thought. It is subtle enough to express all that we can conceive, down to the innermost and “diverse movements of our souls.” https://inference-review.com/article/the-siege-of-paris Robert Berwick is a Professor in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems at MIT. Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor and Professor of Linguistics (Emeritus) at MIT.
Simply put, (and as Chomsky's decades of research has revealed), language, (due to 'syntax)', is a 'all or nothing' affair, and therefore, in principle, language cannot have been acquired gradually as is falsely believed within Darwin's theory. As the following article states, "Since we can find syntax within words, there is no reason to consider them as 'linguistic fossils' of a prior, presyntax stage,"
New paper suggests speech developed in a now-familiar form - March 31, 2015 Excerpt: "The hierarchical complexity found in present-day language is likely to have been present in human language since its emergence," says Shigeru Miyagawa, Professor of Linguistics,,, "Since we can find syntax within words, there is no reason to consider them as 'linguistic fossils' of a prior, presyntax stage," Miyagawa adds.,,, Nobrega and Miyagawa write that a single word can be "internally complex, often as complex as an entire phrase," making it less likely that words we use today are descended from a presyntax mode of speech.,,, "Hierarchical structure is present not only in single words, but also in compounds, which, contrary to the claims of some, are not the structureless fossilized form of a prior stage," Miyagawa says. In their paper, Nobrega and Miyagawa hold that the same analysis applies to words in Romance languages that have been described elsewhere as remnants of formless proto-languages.,,, Miyagawa's integration hypothesis is connected intellectually to the work of other MIT scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, who have contended that human languages are universally connected and derive from our capacity for using syntax.,,, http://phys.org/news/2015-03-paper-speech-now-familiar.html
Oh well, so much for Hopper's claim that 'science' tells us that language evolved gradually. That is simply a patently false claim as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned. If SA has any integrity, they should print a full retraction of the article. It is that bad! ,,, One more note on this subject, it is also interesting to note that the late best selling author "Tom Wolfe" was so taken aback by the honest confession from leading Darwinists, in 2014, that they have no evidence that humans acquired language gradually, that he wrote a book on the subject, "The Kingdom of Speech". Here is a general outline of one of his main arguments in his book;
“Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.” - Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech
In other words, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as lions, bears, sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and also to, more specifically, infuse immaterial information into material substrates in order to create, i.e. intelligently design, objects that are extremely useful for our defense, basic survival in procuring food, furtherance of our knowledge, and also merely for our pleasure. What is more interesting still about the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ through the ‘top-down’ infusion of immaterial information into material substrates, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself, are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis. As Vlatko Vedral, Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, states, "The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena."
"The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena." Vlatko Vedral - Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College - a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.
It is hard to imagine a more convincing proof that we are ‘made in the image of God’, than finding that both the universe and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our ability to infuse immaterial information into material substrates.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.
I guess a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself, (the Creator of Heaven and Earth), became a man, performed miracles such as walking on water and dying on a cross, and then rising from the dead, to prove that He was God. But that is a subject for another time,
Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-TL4QOCiis Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
bornagain77_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Allison Hopper, and whomever at Scientific American (SA) allowed “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” to be published, have revealed that they do not understand history, the Bible, nor the science at hand. First off, all the great men of history who championed equal rights, (William Wilberforce, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King Jr.), were all devout Christians who firmly believed that God created all men equal. Yet, unbelievably, In the SA piece we find this claim, “In literal interpretations of the Christian Bible, white skin was created in God’s image. Dark skin has a different, more problematic origin.” Directly contrary to that egregiously false claim, the "Christian" Bible, (i.e. the New Testament), actually holds that, "From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands."
Acts 17:26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.
There also is the little matter of the "Table of Nations", (i.e. an apologetic tool), where, (via findings from anthropology, archaeology, ethnography, ethnohistory, genetics, geology, and sociology), it is held that all the nations of the earth, i.e. all races, are derived from the three sons of Noah.
THE TABLE OF NATIONS (GENEALOGY OF MANKIND) AND THE ORIGIN OF RACES (HISTORY OF MAN) http://www.soundchristian.com/man/
On top of that, and very early on in the Bible, we also find that the Bible, with Moses's wife no less, is very explicit in its condemnation of racial bigotry.
How To Follow The Wisdom Of Moses And Zipporah For The Black Lives Matter Moment - June 2020 Excerpt: “And Miriam, and Aaron with her, spoke against Moses concerning the Cushite wife he had taken,” the Book of Numbers narrates. “Cushite” refers to a land south of Egypt, roughly equivalent to modern Ethiopia. Earlier, in the Book of Exodus, Moses indeed meets his wife Zipporah in a land far outside Egypt (in that passage the land is referred to as Midian: by either name, a remote foreign place). So, what underlies this malice by Moses’ siblings against his wife, their own sister-in-law? Their bias against the color of her skin and the land of her origin. What happens next conveys unequivocally how bigotry must be seen: “?And the Lord’s wrath flared against them…and, look, Miriam…was struck with skin blanch.” The punishment is pointed: “?for insulting a dark-skinned woman,” Miriam “turns white,” as modern Bible scholar Masha Turner has noted. Miriam is the one to get this penalty, Turner adds, because when Miriam and Aaron “spoke” against Zipporah, “‘spoke’ is in the feminine singular form, indicating that Miriam is the chief spokesperson.” Yet Aaron goes along with Miriam’s words, and Talmudic lore envisions Aaron as getting skin blanch as well.,,, https://religionunplugged.com/news/2020/6/25/the-wisdom-of-moses-for-the-black-lives-matter-moment
Thus Hopper's claim that “In literal interpretations of the Christian Bible, white skin was created in God’s image. Dark skin has a different, more problematic origin” is an egregiously false claim that is very easily refuted, and, as Pauli would have put it, "Not even wrong!" i.e. It reflects a serious lack of even a minimal amount of research on Hopper and the SA Editor's part. Seriously, I have seen better Biblical Literacy coming from atheistic trolls on Youtube. Perhaps Allison Hopper, and whomever at Scientific American (SA) allowed “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” to be published, should have gone to Sunday school a little more often than just on Christmas and Easter?, (assuming that they even went to Sunday school on those occasions). As to the science at hand, we find this claim in Hopper's SA article,
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.
That is very much true. But I want to know exactly why Hopper thinks that this particular piece of scientific evidence might support her Darwinian worldview, instead of supporting the Christian belief that God created humanity? It is now known that the 'diversity of races' was not accomplished via the gaining of genetic information, (as would be presupposed within Darwin's theory), but that it was brought about by the loss of genetic information. As the following article states, "As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced."
New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa - October 22, 2012 Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans' anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the "Out of Africa" expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago. This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced. http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-fuller-picture-human-expansion.html
And as the following article found, "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians."
"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." - Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-
Moreover, due to the accumulation of deleterious mutations, and as the following article states, "Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,,"
Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012)? Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,, "One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,, "Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,, The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers.?The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121128132259.htm
In fact, all the phenotypic characteristics that the Nazis held to be proof of their racial superiority, i.e. blue eyes, blond hair, light skin, actually prove the opposite in that all those phenotypic characteristics were brought about by the loss and/or the 'turning down' of genetic information, not from the gain of any new genetic information,
Daily thought: blue eyes and other gene mutations, April 25, 2013 Excerpt: "Research on blue-eyes has led many scientist to further affirm that humans are truly mere variations of the same origin. About 8% of the world's total population has blue eyes so blue eyes are fairly rare. In fact, blue eyes are actually a gene mutation that scientist have researched and found to have happened when the OCA2 gene "turned off the ability to produce brown eyes." http://www.examiner.com/article/daily-thought-blue-eyes-and-other-gene-mutations? The Genetics of Blond Hair June 1, 2014 Excerpt: ,,,When he and his colleagues studied this regulatory DNA in human cells grown in a laboratory dish, they discovered that the blond-generating SNP reduced KITLG activity by only about 20%. Yet that was enough to change the hair color.“This isn’t a ‘turn the switch off,’ ” Kingsley says. “It’s a ‘turn the switch down.’ ” “This study provides solid evidence” that this switch regulates the expression of KITLG in developing hair follicles, http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/06/genetics-blond-hair Melanin Excerpt: The melanin in the skin is produced by melanocytes, which are found in the basal layer of the epidermis. Although, in general, human beings possess a similar concentration of melanocytes in their skin, the melanocytes in some individuals and ethnic groups more frequently or less frequently express the melanin-producing genes, thereby conferring a greater or lesser concentration of skin melanin. Some individual animals and humans have very little or no melanin synthesis in their bodies, a condition known as albinism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanin#Humans
Contrary to what Hopper apparently believes, this, (loss of information), is simply not the type of evidence that Darwinists need in order to scientifically substantiate their theory as being valid, or that it is even feasible. Whereas on the other hand, this type of evidence fits hand in glove with what we would expect to see if God did indeed create all the nations from one man, exactly as is claimed in the "Christian Bible"
Acts 17:26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.
bornagain77_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

Actually evolutionists can get away with anything, and this will not actually lead to discussing racism associated to evolution theory. They have proven that they can get away with anything, by professor Robert Richards of the university of Chicago, succesfully denying that Heackel had any involvement in the history of nazism.mohammadnursyamsu_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

Racially motivated people use whatever happens to be convenient to justify their racism. It was believed in the United States, at least those in power, that black men were incapable of flying planes, particularly in a combat situation. Canada had an integrated air force and proven black men were every bit as capable as white men. The evidence was ignored in the name of science.BobRyan_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply