Notably absent from a book purporting to be a refutation of racism is a definition of either race or racism. There is the ominous hint that racism is evil, and the assertion that races don’t even exist, but precise definitions — nay, even fuzzy ones — are quite lacking. Throughout, evolution is pinned with the blame — unless it should be the fault of that most anti-evolutionary of all Western peoples, the Americans. Listen to Ham speak:
Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups of “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others. (51)
There is something dishonest about that statement. Darwinists routinely deny the very thing that Ham attributes to them. And indeed, when Darwinists make claims consistent with Ham, he is quick to jump on board with them:
Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only one race of humans. For instance, a scientist at the Advancement of Science Convention in Atlanta in 1997 stated, “race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.” This person went on to say, “curiously enough, the idea comes very close to being of American manufacture. ” (52)
Let’s start with the “American manufacture” slur. It only takes a page before Ham forgets he endorsed that and goes on to approve the statement, “the most hideous example was provided by Hitler’s Germany” (53). Is it or is it not of American manufacture then? Does Ham listen to himself talking? The appeal to Hitler will need to be examined more closely in due time. For now, focus just on the opportunistic dishonesty in Ham’s use of sources. Within two pages, he both blames evolutionism as being inherently racist, and praises them for denying racism.
Though neither race nor racism is ever defined, very clearly Mr. Ham thinks racism has something to do with common vs. disjunctive origin. For, he concludes the long section (chap 1-4) on the genetic possibility that all men are descended from a single pair, “Now that we understand that the so-called ‘races’ in reality constitute just one race…”
But this is crazy. Many people that believe humanity is divided into races also believe that all men are descended from a single pair, and the vast majority of Christians that believe in the existence of races share that belief. Moreover, chronologists, genealogists and mappers of humanity developed a comprehensive theory on the distribution of the races of humanity long before evolution was believed by any but a few esoteric neo-Platonists here and there. Their material on genetic theory is interesting, but Ham et al. are tilting at windmills if they think this is telling against a belief that races exist.
One could be cute and point out that some evolutionists believe in a common ancestor with a vengeance — indeed, that all living things descend from the same single cell! So by Ham’s definition, evolutionists not only deny “races” among men, but would be forced to concede that men and apes are of the same race. And elephants, and beetles.
Let’s unpack Ham’s presupposition a little more. He seems to think that one belief about origins, “common descent,” leads to racial egalitarianism if not the denial that races even exist; while another, “multiple descent” leads to racism. Call the “common descent” belief S1 and the multiple-descent S2. So Ham thinks
S1 ==> egalitarianism or no races
S2 ==> racism
But in the course of time, S1 leads to S2, as Ham himself is at pains to point out. That is, he teaches that eventually commonly-descended humanity separated into isolated “people groups” which then developed racial characteristics on the basis of naturalistic survival of the fittest. On the one hand, S1 obtains: “…the so-called ‘races’ in reality constitute just one race,” and this because of common descent. On the other hand, segregation caused by the Babel dispersion led to diverse “people groups”:
Clearly, though, there are groups of people who have certain features (e.g. skin “color”) in common, which distinguish them from other groups. As stated earlier, we prefer to call these “people groups” rather than “races”. (57)
In other words, S2 resulted from S1 in the course of time. Thus,
S1 ==> S2 in the course of time.
From this, if Ham would pay attention, it follows that
S1 ==> racism in the course of time (if his second premise is true).
His thesis fails immediately. In other words, both the evolutionist and Mr. Ham believe in both single-descent and multiple descent. And if multiple-descent implies racism, then Ham’s model implies racism no less than the secular evolutionist’s does.
To rescue his thesis, he is probably going to have to introduce a magic time-scale: there was “enough time” to generate different “people groups” with quite different characteristics, but “not enough time” as that that could account for the superiority of one people group to another, or even, “differences” between them that are anything more than superficial.
Maybe so; but that is quite different from saying that single-origin versus “evolution” per se establishes his thesis. If he is going to hang everything on a magic time scale, let him say so plainly.
But the magic time scale will not lead to his conclusion either. His time scale is enough to explain the current racial differences, he says. And those differences are what they are. If they are such that one would conclude that one race is superior to another, it is entirely irrelevant what the time scale leading to those differences was.
The only point worth making with respect to evolutionists’ denial of evolutionary differences between the races is that they are obviously lying. Modern academia is all about funding, and you must be politically correct to get the funding. If evolution is true, then Africa is at least several hundred thousand years behind the evolutionary curve. Obviously. Anyone who denies this is either blind, inexperienced, or fundamentally dishonest. Salve your conscience by chalking it up to bad luck, if you wish — like the chronic “bad weather” explaining the poor harvests of the Soviet Union — but don’t deny the obvious.
Europeans that do deny it must think they are being humble and generous. They are not. They are despising the good gifts that have been showered on their own tribe. They are ingrates and prevaricators.
Now, a word of grace and hope needs to be extended to the African as well — and in due time I will make that point. But denying the plain facts of the current situation is hardly a basis for grace or hope. To say, in the teeth of all evidence,”have hope! you are really no different than any other tribe,” is hardly a message of hope.
Faced with this fact, Ham will undoubtedly try to shift the focus from nature to nurture: the problem is “cultural,” not “racial.” But the evolutionist cannot do this so quickly. To deny “biology” in favor of “culture” is dishonest since for the evolutionist, culture is an aspect of evolution as well. Moreover, for both Ham and the evolutionist, the proof that there is no biological aspect to “culture” has not been made. What would such a proof look like? What could it look like? Even after hundreds of years simmering in a European-cultural pressure-cooker, Africans when left alone gradually revert back to music and mores that resemble Africa, not Europe. Africans create a distinctly African culture wherever they end up, even as Scandinavians create a typically Scandinavian culture in Minnesota. And this during a time that African-Americans overwhelmingly claim Christianity and Scandinavians have largely abandoned it. Where is the proof that there is not something genetic going on here? Christians need to get their heads out of the sand.
The evolutionists are clearly prevaricating for reasons of political correctness for the purpose of obtaining political respect and, above all, funding; Ham et al, unfortunately, show themselves committed more strongly to something other than the truth by the opportunistic way they now use, now abuse evolutionists, just as it suits their own politically-correct agenda. The obvious dishonesty of the evolutionists should have been pointed out. But Ham cannot do this, because he wants to join them when they make this lie.