Evolution is antithetical to racism

jar writes: As we learn more, particularly in the field of genetics, it becomes increasingly obvious that there is almost no difference between humans of any kind, and in fact far less difference between humans and apes, or even humans and pond scum, than anyone imagined than anyone imagined.

Ok, but then we are on the slippery slope. If we are allowed to kill pond scum, which share % of their genes with us, and we are allowed to keep mice as pets which share %, there needs to be a dividing line in a continuum of relatedness where we say "doing X is now unacceptable". And, unless there is something else very obvious we can use to draw the line, we are left in a situtation where we can justify discrimination between organisms based on genes.

However, for a special creationist, there is an immutable division between humans and apes, and humans and pond scum. So, one can use that very obvious (to them) boundary to draw their lines. Evolutionists have no such luxury.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

jar writes: The justification for killing plants and animals for food and keeping mice as pets is not a racial issue.

Not strictly, no. But race is just a sub-species (a division within a species), and evolutionists acknowledge that the human species is just one of the ape - Hominidae - family (division within that family) and the human-sheep division is just another division within the placental mammal infraclass. So why modifying behaviour based on one division allowable (humans and sheep, or humans and other great apes), but modifying your behaviour towards another isn't (between races)?

In other words, why does the phylogenetic difference between a human and a cat allow you to act differently to humans than you do to cats, but if you act even slightly different because of a much smaller (but still real) difference between humans and other humans it become unacceptable?

The creationists have no such problem, because they can claim that cats and humans are totally different kinds of organism, but humans are the same kind. Differences are irrelevant - kind is what matters.

Edited by Doddy, : phylogeny

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

Well, evolution being a scientific theory, it can't dictate our ethics. But, it can inform them. It can affect the conclusions of the premises we use to justify our actions.

We may be allowed to neuter a cat because we think cats are less able to reason than we are, or less conscious than we are, or less whatever. Regardless of the justification, without the massive wall between kinds that creationists use, what well-defined boundary is there between Fluffy and the foreign guy down the street, who we also think can't reason as well as we can, or is in some other way less 'entitled' to our niceties?

While evolution may not justify racism (and I never said it did), creationism certainly works better than evolution to hold it back - they can appeal to 'humans, with a soul, as opposed to soulless animals and plants' or 'the kind created in God's image' as definitions of what shouldn't be discriminated against. Modern biological science tells us there is no clear-cut boundary between humans, and there is also no clear-cut boundary between all animals, or all lifeforms.

So, instead of just laughing at me perhaps you should start to tell me WHY I am wrong, so that those who are a little less astute can know why you are laughing at me.

Edited by Doddy, : clarify

Edited by Doddy, : fixed spelling

Edited by Doddy, : grammar. Last edit, I promise

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

Nuggin writes: Creationists don't believe that all men are special and equal. They believe that they are the ones that God likes and the other people are the ones that God hates.

Oh, I know. But it's not a belief in special creation that does that, it's their belief in all the other parts of the Bible, plus a little extra innate prejudice.

Creationism protects against racism, I think, but the rest of their funny religious beliefs just fuel it. It's like mixing 10 parts ethanol with 1 part water and throwing it on a fire - the creationism part helps, but the rest doesn't.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

anglagard writes: Please stop confusing racism with specie-ism, which is off topic in this thread.

It's not off topic at all. As jar pointed out in his OP, all life is related. And, all races are related. It's just a matter of degree, hence my slippery slope argument. Why shouldn't I be allowed to talk about the thick end of the wedge in a thread on the thin edge? It's like prohibiting me from talking about camels in a thread on camel noses.

And, as I pointed out, the term race (as Darwin used it), simply means sub-species or grouping within a species.

anglagard writes: If you would like to introduce a PNT as to why specie-ism is either immoral or moral, please feel free to do so.

But I don't really care about whether it is or it isn't. All I want to introduce is the fact that specie-ism is considered fairly acceptable behaviour, and the theory of evolution, by stating the relationship between all organisms, leads us to either reject specie-ism or to accept racism - only drawing a sharp line on the slope, like creationists do, can prevent this.

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

Modulous writes: Creationism gives us a well defined boundary: It says everyone sucks but us and they should die.

Not quite. Biblical creationism says everything sucks (that is, "God said unto [Adam and Eve], Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." - Gen 1:28). So, you are allowed to kill any animal. But humans are special, because they are created in the image of God.

Modulous writes: We shouldn't learn other languages since God divided us for a reason, we shouldn't inter marry, we should treat our daughters as objects and properties for bargaining, we should distrust other races - forbidding inter-marriage - and we should keep slaves.

Nope, the Abrahamic religion says that, not their creation myth. It is to that religion, not to that creation myth, that they appeal when justifying racism, correct?

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!

nemesis_juggernaut writes: There is a general progression if you look at a cladistic tree. There most certainly is a general direction within the theory. Increased intelligence is generally a qualifier.

I'm not going to comment on the biological nature of your point, because the study of biology doesn't dictate ethics. (Plus, it's nonsense)

On the other hand, I can certainly see a progression in what organisms we consider moral to kill. Nobody cares if I kill a bacteria. Nobody cares if I kill a fungus or a plant (not because of the intrinsic nature of the plant, anyway. If they care, it is because of its effect on people). Very few care if I kill a worm or a sea urchin. But once we reach fish, some more people start to care. Even more care about lizards. Quite a few care about killing cats or parrots. Even more care about killing chimps. And nearly everyone cares about killing humans.

So, there is certainly a correlation between the intelligence of the organism and the degree to which are concerned for that creature. Thus, unless one can appeal to certain boundaries between these creatures, we are variable criteria as our moral guide.

One example is the abortion debate. Most creationists are anti-abortion, because they believe killing humans is wrong, period. However, the moral and informed people realise that it is killing intelligence that is wrong, as that is the defining characteristic of humans. And so if a person is less intelligent, and we don't have any certain box of 'humankind' to protect all humans, are we not left with evolution leading us to conclusions that are more unsettling than those that we would reach with untrue views about the world, specifically special creation?

Edited by Doddy, : clarify last paragraph

---

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!