Re: SFN Article “Tommy Debates the Bible Answer man”
From: Gary Ike
Date: February 10, 2005
That had nothing to do with a shouting match. The simple fact is that
evolutionary theory as an explanation of origins is inherently racist, sexist,
and defeatist. If I am nothing but the result of a series of trillions and
trillions of cosmic accidents over billions of years, how is it that the word
"respect" should have any meaning what so ever? If I am stronger or cleverer
and possess the means, according to evolution, I should kill you and plunder
your estate in order that the survival of the fittest is perpetuated. It is
If you buy into Darwinian Theory and were consistent, you would be advocating
the destruction of the entire third world at the hand of the Western
democracies. They are weak and a drain on scarce resources after all.
Get a clue. Hank is justifiably annoyed at being attacked by someone
operating from ground resembling a swamp. You are not consistent with your own
worldview and in an attempt to make it politically correct have denied the most
basic logical conclusions it supports.
The crux of the biscuit:
Hank: If you had a Christian worldview, you wouldn't ever... you
wouldn't ever have to worry about that. The fact of the matter is,
there are those who take the sacred name of Christ upon their lips
that embrace theistic evolution There are those who take the
sacred name of Christ upon their lips, who are inconsistent with
their own theology. The fact of the matter is this. And this is
where you're missing, and making, simple categorical mistakes. The
Christian worldview very clearly is not a racist worldview. There
are Christians who unfortunately are benighted, and have fallen
into the horrible worldview of racism. But that is not commensurate
with Christianity. That is AGAINST the very profession they hold.
What I'm saying with evolution is that it's quite the opposite. If
you are a racist, you are simply being consistent with the
worldview of Darwinian Evolution! Does that make SENSE to you? I
mean, you should be able to understand that. That's not real
Unless you insist on denying the existence of a Creator, and then as with all
lies, it becomes complicated indeed.
An Average Joe with a High School Education,
To: Gary Ike
From: Dave W.
Date: February 10, 2005Thank you for writing to the Skeptic Friends Network. Tommy Huxley isn’t available for comment, so I’ll be answering your email.
Let’s assume, for a moment, that Darwin’s theory was inherently racist, sexist and all the rest. Fortunately, nobody has had to “buy into” a strictly Darwinian theory of evolution for many decades, now. It’s nearly 150 years old, and scientific knowledge of evolution has moved far beyond what Darwin laid out.
The study of genetics, for example, shows us that helping out complete strangers helps out our own genes to some extent. Yes, it may be a very small amount, but it’s not zero. With that in mind, it is clear that anyone who claims that evolutionary theory states we should all be entirely selfish is speaking without full knowledge of what we do, in fact, now know (and what Darwin did not then know). Heck, there are many examples of altruism among animals, why shouldn’t the same be true of human beings?
Being consistent with a 150-year-old idea is rather silly, don’t you think? Instead, the people who understand evolutionary theory as it is today, being consistent with it, argue against sexism and racism. And I have yet to see any evidence that more of them are “defeatist” than the average Joe with a high-school education.
Both you and Mr. Hanegraaff don’t appear to understand modern evolutionary theory, and so your “logical conclusions” aren’t at all consistent with our current knowledge about the natural world. If that makes others appear to you to be inconsistent, it certainly isn’t the fault of those you judge.
For just three examples of areas in which your knowledge could improve, “Social Darwinism,” which you imply we should be practicing if Darwin was correct, was never proposed by Darwin at all. Darwin’s theory also made no argument regarding the existence or non-existence of any “creator.” Nor did he coin the phrase “survival of the fittest” (though he did complain about it). That uninformed people attribute these ideas to Darwin (and subsequently to all of modern evolutionary theory) does not make them “logical conclusions” of evolution.