Evolution is a racist doctrine

The theory of evolution is simply a description about how the world works.In any species, individuals differ slightly in their characteristics.Some individuals, because of these characteristics, are more likely to survive and produce surviving offspring than others.Many of these characteristics are inheritable, and so each succeeding generation will be composed of more individuals with these particular characteristics and few of the others.Over time, these small changes over the generations add up to the great differences that we see between modern species.There is nothing here about what individuals "should" do, just an explanation why the world looks the way it does. The theory of evolution is no more a justification for racism than the theory of gravity is a justification that everyone should crawl on their bellies.-Racists "justify" racism just by stating that "those other people" act differently and want to destroy what "we" believe. The belief that some races are superior is based on the belief some cultural traditions and beliefs are superior to others, and that these traditions are somehow tied to race rather than upbringing.-In so far as racists and eugenicists have tried to justify their actions with genetics or some cartoon version of the theory of evolution, they are actually talking about the techniques used in animal breeding that have been used for thousands of years to produce "better" breeds of cattle and dogs and such.If it's true that we shouldn't be teaching anything that might justify racists' beliefs, then what shouldn't be taught isn't the theory of evolution but the techniques of producing better yields of agricultural products through selective breeding and culling.

Scientists are concerned with discovering the truth of the world around us. Their theories are their best analysis of how the world around us works. What should be the proper response of a scientist if they realize that their discoveries might be misused by evil people?

Hi, Davidjay.You didn't really answer my question. Let me rephrase it:Suppose that a scientist makes a new discovery or formulates a new theory that she believes explains the relevant data. Or, if you prefer, she believes that she has made a new discovery or she develops a new theory that she believes explains the data.She comes to the realization that evil people may use her discovery for evil purposes.How should she react?Edited by Chiroptera, : Corrected a typo.

An example I like is fish. Humans and lungfish are both on a branch that split from the other fish long ago. Any clade that includes both lungfish and, say, salmon will also include humans.Yet, it's a bit strange to say, "humans didn't evolve from fish - they are fish!"Language is what it is, and I think we should accept that "fish" is a common word that describes a paraphylic group of animals, while "apes" can refer to a paraphylic group that doesn't include humans or a monophylic group that does depending on context.I'm agnostic whether "monkeys" can properly be used for a monophonic group that includes humans.

(1) On the one hand, according to creationists, evolution says that humans are no different than animals and we have no justification to treat animals and people differently.(2) But on the other hand, according to creationists, evolution says that different races are differently evolved so we can treat other races like animals.Is there anything else that evolution says?Edited by Chiroptera, : Tried to make my point more clear.

Can this question be answered with empirical data? Which racist organizations make the theory of evolution a major tenet of their ideology? Which ones use their religious texts? Which ones just say, "Those people are just a bunch of criminals," and leave it at that?I'd think that if evolution were intrinsically racist, most racist organizations would feature it predominately on their web pages.Edited by Chiroptera, : typo

And your biblical literalist says that all humans are created in the image of God,yet I bet you treat your family different from your friends different from strangers different from actively hostile people....

I've been making a half-hearted search looking for evidence that any of the major American racist organizations make evolution a major tenet of their ideologies, but I haven't found anything.I found some sites claiming that American racist organizations tend more toward Biblical literalism (although some tend to be Old Earth Creationism).I would think that if the theory of evolution was racist, actual real racists would be all over it. So, which major racist organizations make evolution a major tenet of their ideologies?

Modern science says that all humans are basically the same, but people in Africa have dark skins because people who are incapacitated with second degree sunburn or advanced melanoma have fewer children, while northern Europeans have lighter skin because not having severe rickets is also reproductively advantageous.Ancient fables tell us that all humans are basically the same, but Africans have darker skins because one should never look at a drunken, naked Noah.Why does this make science racist?Edited by Chiroptera, : Minor edit

Thanks for replying, Faith.- I admit that my comment was mostly to tweak Davidjay. But I also think it's useful to remind people that what evolution has to say about human races.Namely that natural selection may explain some superficial differences, modern genetics shows there hasn't been any significant divergence between the different human populations, and modern sociology/psychology shows there isn't any significant genetic differences in intellectual ability or tendency toward crime.- Yeah, I realize that most contemporary Christians don't subscribe to the Hamitic theory of race. But it is undeniable that it has been used in the past (and currently among some racists) to justify racism.I think it's good to keep that in mind when confronting those who think that being used by bad people to justify their evil somehow makes evolution uniquely dangerous.People who hold irrational beliefs will use anything to justify their beliefs. I don't see the theory of evolution as being any more likely to be abused in this respect.

Focus, Davidjay, focus!Here is what evolution says about human races:Africans have darker skin color because lighter skin people were more likely to have very bad sunburn and/or skin cancer from the strong tropical sun and so have fewer children, making fewer light skinned people in the next generation.Northern Europeans have white skin because the weaker northern sunlight was more efficient at producing vitamin D in light skin, so these people will have been more healthy and had more children, leaving more white skin people in the next generation.Where in this is the racism?

I think that the question I asked was pretty clear; if not, I'm happy to try to clarify.But if you're not going to answer it, I guess there's not much I can do.

Especially since the different "races" of human didn't evolve separately as different branches. Humans have always been a single interbreeding population.Edited by Chiroptera, : Damn autocorrect!

It's pretty controversial how much of what we call "intelligence" is due to inheritable characteristics as opposed to social factors.It may well be that our society is "evolving" toward an idiocracy -- certainly the US appears headed down that path! -- but I suspect that the forces are more social and cultural than biological.

What else do humans breed with?