Evolution is a racist doctrine

Social Darwinism, which is an aberration of Darwinian thought, ≠ evolutionary theory. Its emergence was fiercely criticized by biologists and paleontologists (e.g., Lester Ward). You are making the same mistake that early proponents of social "Darwinism" made, and that is the assumption that fitness-to-survive in a given environmental context is the same as overall superiority. Fitness ≠ superiority, so phrases like a "superior human race" are not consistent with the Neo-Darwinian paradigm. Wat? Most people don't think about bloodlines or DNA or genes or mutations when engaging in warfare. I don't recall this kind of thinking cropping up during the Vietnam War, or any of the Gulf wars, etc. You're pretty much making this up. Welp. Except that none of this is consistent with evolutionary theory. In fact, it was evolutionary biology and related disciplines (anthropology, genomics) which forever shattered the notion of biological races and biological determinism. So, if anything, evolutionary theory has produced rigorous anti-racist lines of evidence (thanks in large part to Franz Boas). I don't think you know what's taught in the "worldly universities" when it comes to biology and stuff. Nope. Nice attempt to make us all feel good and warm inside, but yeah you obv. don't know anything about evolutionary theory, anthropology, etc.

My head is literally hurting trying to make sense of that convoluted, tortuously winding response.

Citation needed.

That article shoots your thesis full of holes more than it demonstrates that Sanger "who founded Planned Parenthood used the ToE to justify her belief that the black races are inferior to whites." It's a popular right-wing myth, but it isn't exactly true. Where in that article do you find support for your assertion?

The "tie" between Darwinian theory and racism was pseudoscientific nonsense (e.g., see Stephen J. Gould's critique of Morton's skull analyses), relying on shoddy methods and pure ideology. So racism is not a necessary outcome of Darwinian theory; rather, Darwinian theory was exploited by the white power structure to "justify" racism. Racists always find a way to twist facts to suit their ideology, and Darwinian theory was no different. Nor was Christianity immune to the distortions of the racist power system. But Sanger was ostensibly not a mainstream eugenicist; indeed, her advocacy of birth control was an argument against proponents of eugenics. While eugenicists were carrying out forced sterilizations -- using state power to determine who was "fit" and "unfit" -- Sanger argued that the decision of childbirth was a decision to be made by the woman, not the state. I see no evidence that anti-black racism was involved in Sanger's position. A lack of birth control for the black community was a method of repression and subjugation by the white state; while the white elite could send their pregnant daughters on a "vacation to Europe" to take care of the matter, the poorer black community had no such options and thus continued to be crushed by the poverty that results from larger families and a lack of access to capital. As Sanger noted:"I believe that the Negro question is coming definitely to the fore in America, not only because of the war, but in anticipation of the place the Negro will occupy after the peace. I think it is magnificent that we are in on the ground floor, helping Negroes to control their birthrate, to reduce their high infant and maternal death rate, to maintain better standards of health and living for those already born, and to create better opportunities to help themselves, and to rise to their own heights through education and the principles of democracy."Here I concur with Valenza's 1985 conclusion that "It would be more valid to accuse Margaret Sanger of racism if, after considering the urgent need among black people for the health benefits of birth control, she had chosen to do nothing" (in: Family Planning Perspectives, 1985, "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?").

And the patriarchy strikes again.

I thought I'd do you favor and re-articulate your sentiments without the whitewashing you consistently engage in.

Yes, the Bible is indeed patriarchal, and that's why we see the Bible (well, esp. OT) more sharply condemn certain sexual acts between consenting adults than it condemns rape. I mean, apparently adultery -- an act between consenting adults -- is more deplorable to that psychopath in the sky than rape is, because adultery made it into the Ten Commandments. As to why genital anatomy should determine who is in charge (in terms of systematic and cultural power structure), the proponents of patriarchy have no ready answer.Nor does the Bible.

And yet the Ten Commandments make no direct mention of rape, but do distinctly mention adultery. One wonders why an act between consenting adults was deemed more worthy of outright condemnation than rape. The current "cultural deterioration of the West" is a fantasy. There is no ongoing cultural deterioration of the West under the ethical and moral standards of my generation. Rape is far more prevalent in patriarchal societies than in matriarchal or gylanic ones. Why should genital anatomy determine who is in charge?Added Comment: If the "true function" of patriarchy is not domination, then one wonders why rape is more prevalent in patriarchal societies than in matriarchal ones.Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.

And as I said, if your celestial psychopath wasn't a patriarchal monster, rape would have been directly mentioned and condemned in the Ten Commandments, instead of adultery. There is no comparison between adultery and rape. Rape survivors go through clinical depression, PTSD, and suicide at a far higher rate than adultery "victims" ever will (not to mention social shame and risk of murder at the hands of the rapist). So why again did Yahweh choose adultery over rape, when mulling over what to mention directly in the Ten Commandments? Deut. 22:23-24 -- "If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to deaththe young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife."The rape victim here is to be executed. Which is more patriarchal psychopathy that the Old Testament god is fond of.Notice where I bolded this, too. The man is to be executed because he violated another man's wife, not because he, y'know, he raped a woman. It is as if rape in itself is less condemned if the woman is not "betrothed" to another man, so here we see your god legislating morality on the basis of women as property of a male instead of on the basis of women as humans. Cute. Marrying your rapist isn't justice, Faith. Executing a rape victim because she didn't cry for help isn't justice. What kind of twisted morality do you have here? Why should being created first with certain genital parts mean that all individuals with those genital parts should be in charge -- or benefit from a social structure that systematically advantages them? And now you're making stuff up that runs counter to archeological research.

The alternative is for Yahweh, who seems more than capable of dispensing clear-cut guidelines for a rebellious society, to lay out laws that are actually just -- regardless of the patriarchal social structure of this ancient society. Instead, Yahweh simply caves in to the idiosyncrasies of a culture that denied the humanity of women. (Meanwhile, Yahweh is eager to exact vengeance on those who harm his inferiority-complex-laden ego) Apparently Yahweh (and you) don't understand the psychology of individuals who are being actively raped. I mean, I know how to read Hebrew so maybe you'd like to show me exactly how the Hebrew word תִנְאָף (appearing in Exodus 20:12) translates to "sexual sins of all kinds."

Because of his ego, right? The dude's like a textbook narcissist, so one wonders if he was emotionally abandoned by his parents.

No, because molecular evolutionary approaches empirically shattered the concept of biological race. So it does the exact opposite of "backing up" racism. Now, are you going to respond to this point of mine or are you going to get on your pulpit and talk about the Lord and swallowing?