Evolutionists Defame Creationists as White Supremacists
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Recently, I was surprised by a weblog article, "Now creationists are white supremacists. Wait, what?" That really takes the rag off the bush! I commenced to gathering thoughts so I could use it as a springboard, but then asked my contacts at Creation Ministries International, who replied that they were going to respond. Here we go.
There are several instances where "Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy" by Allison Hopper agitated so many people — in addition to its glaring stupidity. Scientific American is known for anti-creationist hit pieces, and they let this opinion thing fly without checking the facts.
 |
| Background image credit: Pixabay / Beate Bachmann |
It doesn't take much effort to realize Allison is virtue signaling to the "woke" crowd, those Marxist-based Critical Race Theory believers (frequently claiming that white people are bad because they are white). The high priests of the secular science industry have rapidly embraced their useful idiots role by allowing leftists to hijack science. While calling evolution deniers "white supremacists" is outrageous, it is also a ploy that is be all that surprising. For that matter, it should come as a shock to non-white people who are biblical creationists that they are, by this definition, white supremacists!
Anti-creationists frequently use the word fundamentalist as a pejorative, but it is fatuous to do so. For one thing, early leaders of the Fundamentalist movement compromised on the biblical view of Genesis. Adherents of the Intelligent Design movement include believers in an old Earth and people of various religions. (Indeed, there are agnostics in it as well.) Darwin doubters include people of various faiths or the lack thereof.
We have to ride off on a side trail for a moment. Biblical creationists have long taught something that secularists have finally realized: there are no races. All are human, and our first parents were probably medium brown in skin shade. You savvy that, pilgrim? Check any of the major creationist organizations, or even this site, and you'll see. Ethnic groups, sure, but the genetic differences are insignificant. I am using race and racism because they are convenient, and it's mighty awkward to coin and use a phrase like "anti-ethnic groupism" or something similar.
Racism has existed for millennia, we get that. People of various ethnic groups may despise others, even within their own, uh, classifications. It happens within various Asian groups, black-on-black, and so on. It is clear that racism is not just a problem from white people, despite the narrative of political leftist opportunists. I've experienced racial discrimination and harassment for being white, and so have others. Don't hate me for my lack of melanin.
Okay, back to the main trail. Now we'll focus on white supremacy. For an opinion piece in Scientific American to claim that denying evolution "is a form of white supremacy" is preposterous. It is also galactically hypocritical to ignore evolutionary racism. Charles Darwin was blatantly racist, and many of his followers used evolution to promote the superiority of the white "race" over all others (there are many links on this site alone that support this fact). Ironically, there are black people who promote evolution, and some Koreans have turned Darwin on his head by claiming evolution makes their particular group superior!
Hopper said, "Embracing humanity’s dark-skinned ancestors with love and respect is key to changing our relationship to the past, and to creating racial equity in the present." She is promoting the Out of Africa theory of origins, but that has received several gut punches. In fact, the evolutionary history rewriters may have to further develop Into Africa.
By the way, is her capitalization of Black but leaving white lowercase another form of virtue signaling? Asking for a friend.
Allison said, "As the biblical story goes, the curse or mark of Cain for killing his brother was a darkening of his descendants' skin." This is an egregious example of poor research and is mocking the Bible, but the Scientific American editors let this nonsense go. (We can guess at their motives, but that's a fallacy, so never mind.) There is no "curse" of Cain. (As a side note, a 1966 movie The Bible: In the Beginning depicted Cain getting a different kind of mark. Check the video at about the 35 min. 50 sec. point.) Did professing Christians believe that blackness was a punishment? Perhaps, but that's not what the Bible teaches, and Cain's descendants didn't survive the Genesis Flood anyway.
 |
| Image furnished by Why?Outreach |
Propaganda is abundant in Hopper's article. We have the big lie, concentration and repetition, make a boogie man or common enemy out of "evolution deniers", and others. Students of propaganda and totalitarian governments who understand these things should find them alarming.
The article also contains outright falsehoods in addition to the absence of research, and it should be a field day for people who know about logical fallacies. For example, appeal to emotion, straw man, and especially equating science with evolution: Evolution deniers are "logically" science deniers. That is manipulative and viperine.
Still, she is consistent with her fundamentally flawed worldview that says we're the products of time, chance, random processes, mutations, and so forth. We're slaves to our chemicals, so there is no right or wrong. If Allison was consistent, she would clam up after admitting that she was born that way, and so are creationists. But we reject the bleak and frankly depressing view of the materialist because we are created in the image of God. Allison, you and your cohorts are not allowed to change or make up your own reality.
Ken Ham wrote what I call a "put up or shut up" article, which makes some good points. However, I need to direct you to something more comprehensive.
How to explain the technological and cultural supremacy of ‘white’ Europeans? Was it God’s undeserved grace and the particulars of history and culture? (Of course it was.) Or was it innate? Maybe it had a biological basis? Ideas about the biological superiority of whites floated around for a long time. But Darwin’s theory of evolution was the first idea to give a plausible sounding story that seemed to explain the ‘data’. Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002), a leading evolutionist who was staunchly antiracist, admitted that evolutionary racists appealed to science at the expense of Scripture:
I strongly encourage you to read the entire article at "Creation: a form of white supremacy?" Please share this article, and I suggest using the hashtag #liar4darwin.