Re: Evolution and Racism

William T. Yates (
Fri, 16 Aug 1996 13:39:19 -0700

There are at least two problems with your analysis.
One, human beings are all ONE species. Races are minor variations
that species.
Two, the argument that 'white' descendants are racially superior is
fales for several reasons. For one, ALL present-day humans are
descendants and therefore racially superior to their ancestors. And the
descendant argument accepts as it's unstated premise that an
evolutionary descendant is naturally superior to it's ancestor. I
that this is not necessarily an established fact. And we haven't even
approachd the subject of "superior" in what regard? Mentally?
Physically? Socially? Resistant to disease?
There is one thing on which the Bible is clear: We are ALL equal
spiritually - dead in trespasses and sins. The only superiority we can
claim is that, by the grace of God alone, we are saved. And that wasn't
our doing!
Bill Yates
> Bill Frix wrote:
> >
> > Greetings!
> > First, let me say that I do not think I am a racist. I am of the
> > opinion that sinners come in all colors as do persons seeking to live
> > righteously. Since God judges us by our hearts and not by our skin
> > color, there is no place for racism in the Church nor should there be
> > in the hearts of Christians.
> >
> > Having said that, I have a problem I would like the evolutionary
> > specialists to discuss. It has been bothering me for some time. The
> > problem is this: without a doubt, human beings are of different
> > races. Since our physical characteristics are dependent (as I
> > understand it) on our genetic structure, it appears that there are
> > differing genetic species of human beings. In my simple
> > understanding, that leads to two possibilities (from an atheistic
> > evolutionary perspective): either multiple species evolved
> > independent of each other or one species adapted (evolved) to
> > differing conditions.
> >
> > The former option gives me problems of interracial relationships,
> > thereby justifying those organizations/sects who prohibit
> > interracial relationships on the basis of cross-species separation
> > (Leviticus 19:19). The latter option makes me uncomfortable because,
> > since the supposed first appearance of humanity occurred in Africa or
> > Asia (I don't which came first), people like the Ku Klux Klan could
> > claim that "white folks" were evolutionary descendents of another
> > race, hence evolutionary superior. This would be akin to the
> > evolution and breeding of dogs. As I understand it, dogs that have
> > a random breeding tend to look alike - looking like the dingos of
> > Australia - while selective breeding gives the unique characteristics
> > of the differing species. From my understanding of evolutionary
> > processes, the differing environments between the northern continents
> > and the tropical regions provided the "selective breeding" impetus.
> > This is not a Christian perspective, that one race is superior to
> > another. Of course, the creationist approach would be that God chose to
> > create persons of differing characteristics, whether that occurred in
> > the genetic structure of Adam or at the Tower of Babel or Noah's
> > curse.
> >
> > In summary, I have problems with the atheistic evolutionary approach
> > because, no matter how you try to explain it, the approach leads to a
> > racist position. What is the evolutionary explanation of my
> > dilemma?
> >
> > William M. Frix
> > Assistant Professor, Electrical Engineering
> > Box 3021
> > John Brown University
> > Siloam Springs, AR 72761
> > Phone: (501) 524-7466
> > FAX: (501) 524-9548
> > EMAIL:

--Bill Yates


--Bill Yates --