EVOLUTION: A black and white issue?
Back during Barack Obama’s campaign, I noted in a cartoon the amazing similarity of Michelle Obama to the Geico cavemen. Having a rather caveman-shaped forehead myself, I felt this was fair game and a funny way to work in yet another dig on Chairman Maobama.
But I’ve been thinking–primarily about the cartoons I could have done, and I’ve had a stunning realization about Western society: The Theory of Evolution really is just another way to keep the black man down.
See, all of those nature-worshipping elitists that push Darwinism and Lamarckism believe that mankind evolved from monkeys. And, that the first human was a skeleton found in Africa that has been named “Lucy,” who was a black woman. Ergo, mankind evolved from black women.
Now at first glance, a lot of black people (I use the color-descriptive term, because Africa isn’t full of just black people) might take pride in this scientific quackery, that their race was the first race. And, that they are the oldest, noblest progenitors of mankind. But that also implies they are the least evolved.
Remember, Lamarck and Darwin came up with their heathen blasphemies about man’s origin in the 1800’s, a time in world history when in the West, black men and women were deemed sub-human. In that age, white western men considered themselves the top of the food chain, their way of rationalizing centuries of slave trading.
For Europe, black men, and even native Americans, were not the same as “normal” men. The Spanish used the same rationale for justifying their invasion of the New World and forcing the natives to convert to Christianity.
Even “Evolution of Man” charts show the black man following apes, with white men following black men. Does all this mean that Barack Obama was the less-evolved candidate? That Americans have chosen a primitive paleo-liberal as their next president? Maybe, if you wear a pillow case over your head and like lighting crosses on fire.
Without getting all preachy, let me just close by expressing my sheer wonder that this hasn’t been noticed by the black caucuses and the NAACP before. Not really surprising since they have sought reparations from the United States, rather than the African nations that originally placed modern Black Americans’ ancestors into slavery, and then sold them (if anyone could afford reparations, surely it would be the oil rich countries of Africa and the Middle East who are historically infamous for slave trading).
Now, it’s little wonder to me that so many black children going through our heathen school systems grow up feeling as though they don’t fit in with the rest of society. Or that all the rich, liberal snobs’ children grow up thinking they are better and that blacks need money thrown at them. Basically, we’re subliminally telling young blacks that they’re little more than animals.
This whole personal discovery has led me to revile Darwin and Lamarck even more than ever (something I never would have thought possible). Perhaps with a less-evolved president we could make some true progress and do away with the racist teachings of Evolution and begin telling our children that all men truly are created equal…not evolved differently.
Popularity: 25% [?]
Darwin’s ideas and many of his followers are truly worth reviling. The idea of “race” is based on nothing more than the quantity of melanin in my skin.
The history of Darwinism applied to human existence is a terribly sad one. The book “One Blood” by Ken Ham chronicles the sad story of an aborigine who was put in a zoo-this kind of thing is the sickening legacy of Darwinism. Many aborigines were killed in the name of “science” in search of evolutionary specimens.
It is my hope that the false lead “science” has clung to in Darwinism will be discarded in the dust bin of history, completely abandoned and discredited. Darwinism is not true science. It cannot be empirically verified. The truth is we are not evolving but devolving.
All criticisms aside for the moment, I hope that the President is successful when his policies truly are in our best interests, and when he is truly off-base, that any harm to our nation will be minimized. This is my “hope” now that “change” has been placed upon us. -Cal Samuel August
Well said, Trog. But what the hell happened in the 8th paragraph? Almost totally undecipherable. Your editor should’ve caught that crappy syntax and poor context. What ever happened to well defined opening sentences? And your main idea is disjointed…like your less evolved nose and cranial structure. Next time send that to me and I’ll edit it for you…oh yeah, I forgot, I don’t have any time. That’s why you have a new editor.
Goodluck chump…er, uh… should I say chimp?
Anyone who understands evolutionary biology knows there is no superior and no inferior human race. Every race has evolved to be good enough to survive in the environment it lives in. That’s why lighter colored skin is found in northern countries, and darker skin is found in tropical climates. The lighter colored skin better absorbs vitamin D from the sun so where there is less sunlight humans will evolve a lighter skin color. In tropical climates skin cancer is a problem so thanks to natural selection humans will develop a darker skin color. A biologist could explain it better but I think I got it mostly right.
You talked about President Obama. I’m a white guy. Skin color is unimportant to me because I understand evolution. So I voted for the best candidate for president. I voted for Obama. I voted for him because it’s very obvious he’s extremely intelligent.
You talked about Lamarckism. That was thrown out more than a century ago.
You talked about “mankind evolved from monkeys.”
People share ancestors with monkeys but we didn’t evolve from modern monkeys. All creatures alive today evolved from ancient creatures. We’re more closely related to the ape species, and humans are still considered to be apes. Our closest living cousins are the chimpanzee apes. The ancient ape-like ancestors we share with chimpanzees lived more than 5 million years ago. Look for Great Apes in any encyclopedia. You will see the following list of the Great Ape species: chimpanzee apes, human apes, bonobo apes, gorilla apes, and orangutan apes.
How do biologists know we share ancestors with these creatures? They can see these evolutionary relationships when they compare DNA sequences. For example when they compare DNA sequences of human apes and chimp apes, they have repeatedly found numerous examples of undeniable evidence that we are related to each other. There is no question about the accuracy of this evidence. We most definitely are distant cousins of chimps. This is as much a fact as our planet’s orbit around the sun.
Please don’t dislike evolution because some ignorant people use it to justify racism. The people who really understand evolution, the biologists, are not racists because they know each race is the best there is for the environment they developed in.
We’ve beaten this dead horse on more than one…hundred occasions. First, not all scientists agree on the deductions of “evolution.” Sure, things change over time, but Darwin’s theory relies heavily on the idea of natural selection. To say that there is “evolution,” but all races are equal is sort of oxymoronic. I mean, if all races are free of deficiency, then natural selection has ran its course, and evolution no longer exists.
Citing an encyclopedia is nothing more than circular reasoning, because they were written by the very scientists who wish to convince people that their theories are facts. Most likely, their agenda is one with atheistic incitement, as to not be held to moral standards.
The bottom line is this: empirical evidence has yet to be presented in favor of evolution. We could get into the fossil record–that resembles swiss cheese at best–but the real truth is that evolution is not science. The scientific method is paramount in determining “real” scientific facts. Evolution is nothing more than an antiquated theory, based on speculation and biased inference. So, Darwinists hide behind the fact that they can’t reproduce the results, because it takes millions of years…very convenient.
Yes, common DNA may point to a common ancestor. But, common DNA can similarly point to a common creator. Without empirical evidence, you have to take a leap of faith. Yes, Darwinism is a religion, just as much as Christianity or Islam. The only difference is that the Bible is commonly considered “mythology,” while your precious encyclopedias are considered “fact.” That said, the Bible is never-changing, while encyclopedias are revised from generation to generation…after you realize your inferences were flawed to begin with.
My personal belief is that some people refuse to admit they don’t have the answers, so they form “clubs” to surround themselves with people with whom they agree. They attend “universities” that teach what they want to hear, they dress alike, adopt the same lingo, and claim to be superior.
How can anyone exclaim “scientific evidence” from five million years ago, and then discount the actual recorded history from two thousand years ago? Easily…preconception.
I have never seen God, and you have never seen a monkey turn into a human (not without the aid of mushrooms). Let go of your insecurity, and admit you don’t know. Besides, Trog’s point is that we are taught that man originated and evolved from Africa…it’s not a stretch to follow his logical reasoning.
Ron, let’s not debate the fallacies of Evolution here- it’s been done before on this blog. Let’s stick to my point, that the Theory of Evolution is inherently racist.
Bobxxx, I see some fallacies with your argument. You claim the Darwinists don’t think as I have described. But they must. If all mankind evolved from “Lucy”, the skeleton in africa, and she is considered to be a black person, than more evolution had to take place for there to be white, red and yellow skinned peoples. We are further down the evolutionary chain than black people. Ergo, black people are less evolved.
I lke your proposition better, that different races evolved at different times from a common ancestor, but that’s not what Darwinists have preached. And you have conveniently omitted the historical perspective of the era that Darwinism was created in: a time when anyone not white was considered less than human.
And I use the term monkies as a generalized term for all primates. It just has a better ring to it than “primates” or “apes”. When i go to the zoo with my 3 year old, I don’t declare “Look at the orangutan!” I say “Look at the monkey!”. It’s like the generalized term “gun”. A handgun is not a “gun” by strict definition of the term. It is a handheld firearm. A pistol. A gun is a large-bore weapon used to deliver huge projectiles over long distances (and that’s not the technical definition either).
I will agree to use the correct term of “ape” or “Primate” as soon as the media stops calling all firearms “guns”. Okay?
As for you voting for Obama… this article was about the racism of Darwinism. Maybe I didn’t need to mention how I came to think of it. Maybe Doc Brown didn’t need to explain to Marty McFly that he came up with the Flux Capacitor when he fell and hit his head on his toilet. But story telling is more involved and colorful than just a reciting of a theory, so I threw it in.
And finally, I do agree that we are distant cousins to chimps; since God made all living things, then technically, we’re all family.
Well Trog, I was hoping for a smart assed response from you in reply to my smart assed commment. Instead, you one upped me by just ignoring me completely.
In response to Bob, all I can say is here we go again. It continues to elude me how evolutionists think that homology proves “the fact” of evolution. Similarities between specie DNA, and, therefore, morphology doesn’t prove that we evolved in the macroevolutionary sense of evolution; what it proves is that there are similarities between species, nothing more. Such a supposition (yours NOT mine) is akin to using the same observation to “prove” that God exists. For example, I could say that the similarities are due to a common design and that proves a common designer, just as you say that similarities in DNA, morphology, etc., prove common ancestry, and, therefore, evolution, which means no design and no designer. That isn’t proof, Bob. If you’re going to play that game, you might just as well respectfully bow out now.
Bottom line: If you want to assert macroevolution as fact, you’re going to have to produce proof that your process results in the biological complexity and specificity we see today. To date, this proof is MIA. Evolution on a micro-scale within digital boundaries, sure. But large scale evolution is nothing more than materialist mythology and it’s going to take more than assertions and ad hoc “proof” to convince me otherwise.
Anyway, thanks for playing.
Chad, you knucklehead, please don’t make this an issue of Creation vs. Evolution. The issue is that Evolution is inherently racist, yet is widely (and possibly obliviously) accepted by the black community.
Trog…you…you…uh, big dummy:) I didn’t make it an issue; Bob did. And since he did (as every evolutionist considers it their solemn duty), I felt it was mine to point out the inanity of his supposition while simultaneously defending the fort. Nothing worse than a (fill in the blank) coming in and using the non-sequitur tack to proselytize our readership with whatever broken epistemology they happen to be peddling.
But you’re right; to quote Bob, as “anyone who understands evolutionary biology knows,” it is inherently racist. Bob takes the opposite position, which is laudable, but ultimately inconsistent with large scale evolution.
My apologies Trog…I have a weakness when it comes to pretentious “intellectuals” that believe that big words, round glasses, a beard and a pipe (generally tobacco wielding) somehow unlock the secrets to universally unanswered questions. I can’t help myself.
One last comment on evolution, and then I promise to address your point: anyone that possesses the ability to think logically (even with no “biology” degree) can see that the mere foundation of scientific discovery rests wholly on the Scientific Method. However, Evolution has somehow been given a pass, and has erroneously (and intentionally in my opinion) been given the “scientific” stamp of approval.
To address your point: I say the “scientific” hoodwinkery in question may in part be a result of the “white, bearded, round glasses wearing, ‘pipe-smoking’” elitists’ wish to believe that they are the most highly “evolved” humans. I believe Hitler is a prime, however extreme, example. I would not purport that Darwinists inherently hold Hitler’s warped view of humanity, but Hitler drew his deductions from the same logical path that you are currently bringing to light. After all, native Africans are still savages, right (sarcasm intended)? As Bob stated, “anyone who understands evolutionary biology [KNOWS]”…If only you and I could could “evolve” to that level of understanding.
“UNGA BUNGA!”
I completely agree with you. I’ve grown up in small towns and didn’t see many black people, but the image given to me by the media had always made me nervous around one. And this includes BET, especially MTV. When watching BET I was thinking “So this is what black people watch” So I grew up thinking that most black people belonged in gangs, were opressed by white people and looking for revenge, etc etc. And I always saw the “Missing Links” with darker skin…. and I grew up being taught that religion was the main source of all racism.
But when I moved to a sort of mid-sized city, I made friends with some black people and got to know many people who belonged in a gang. To tell you the truth, most of my white friends were the ones who ended up joining a gang.
While in college I found many groups of people who didn’t seem to have one black person in their circle of friends. I was hanging out with the Technology groupies. We all liked video games (like, not love). We would have LAN parties on occassion and to be honest, it was some of the most fun I’ve had in a while. It was the people, not the game, that made it fun.
Ironic that most of us in our circle of friends believed in God. Or is it?