Racists Implications of Evolution

Excerpt from Unreliable: The Science and Logic of Bill Nye by Heath Henning. This book can be downloaded for free here.

In his attempt to soften the blow of the racist factors of the evolutionary view, Bill Nye tells the lie that defies logic, well known facts, and revises history to a massive degree. He writes about Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection – that’s’ the full title – …”¹⁾Bill Nye, (ed. Corey Powell), Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, St. Martin’s Press (New York), 2014, p. 46 No it is not the full title, and he knows it; but if he wrote the full title he would have a very difficult time attempting to convince his readers that Darwin was not a racist and his evolution “theory” does not emphatically encourage racism. The full title is: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Anyone can look this up on the internet and see the images of the original prints with this full title. Why would Bill Nye feel the freedom to so boldly lie about this when he should know that it would be so easy to get caught? As long as his lie gives what he feels is the right impression he is satisfied.

The implications of Darwin’s title “Natural Selection… Preservation of the Favoured Races” is obviously racist. Yet Nye still argues:

 The idea of competition inspired “social Darwinism,” which looked at competition among human population (often in racist ways that was unrelated to what Darwin actually wrote).²⁾Bill Nye, (ed. Corey Powell), Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, St. Martin’s Press (New York), 2014, p. 45

The “idea of competition” is presented in the book, in the title, and permeating the entire “theory” of evolution and can in no wise be “unrelated to what Darwin actually wrote.” Charles Darwin, himself, wrote: “I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit…. The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”³⁾Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, I, Letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; as cited by Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, (London: Chatto & Windus, 1959), p. 343 In the introduction to The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Darwin wrote “The sole object of this work is to consider, firstly, whether man, like every other species, is descended from some pre-existing form; secondly, the manner of his development; and thirdly, the value of the differences between the so-called races of man.”⁴⁾Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, (London: John Murray, 1871), Vol. 1, p. 2-3; accessible at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 He obviously viewed a difference of value of the lives of those who he considered different races. This justified genocide in his mind. He wrote, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”⁵⁾Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, (London: John Murray, 1874), Second Edition, Vol. 1, p. 156; accessible at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F944&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Moreover, Darwin’s contemporaries and successors also carried the ideology into the height of racism. For example, Ernst Haeckel, whose fraudulent illustrations of vertebrate embryos convinced many gullible people that evolution was true, wrote: “At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushman, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes.”⁶⁾Ernst Haeckel The History of Creation, Vol. II, trans. by E. Ray Lancaster (London: Henry S. King & Co., 1876), p. 365-366 Referencing Haeckel, Darwin wrote, “Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine. Wherever I have added any fact or view from Prof. Häckel’s writings, I give his authority in the text; other statements I leave as they originally stood in my manuscript, occasionally giving in the foot-notes references to his works, as a confirmation of the more doubtful or interesting points.”⁷⁾Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man,(London, John Murray, 1874), Second Edition, p. 3; accessible at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F944&viewtype=text&pageseq=1

Another of Darwin’s disciples was Thomas Huxley. Tom DeRosa commented on Huxley:

Many Darwin enthusiasts emerged in support of natural selection. One man stood out for his charisma and a seemingly inexhaustible store of energy that would be used to persuade countless people to convert to evolution. His name was Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin’s “Bulldog.”⁸⁾Tom DeRosa, Evolution’s Fatal Fruit: How Darwin’s Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions, Coral Ridge Minstries, 2006, p. 131

Huxley was the major propagator of the evolution ideology in the early years. He stated, “No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.”⁹⁾Thomas Huxley, Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews, (New York: Appleton, 1871),p. 20

One of the individuals that was strongly influenced by the evolution idea was Margret Sagner, founder of Planned Parenthood.

Through birth control Sagner saw a way to control the people whom she now labeled “human weeds” and to preserve the freedom of those whom she judged a superior stock, capable of ruling.¹⁰⁾Kirk Kidwell, “Planned Parenthood has Plans,” The New American, Vol. 2 (January 20, 1986), p. 8

Sagner, and the entire modern abortion racket, clings to the Darwinian/Haeckelian hoax to continue unremorseful in the slaughter of innocent children.

Ontogeny recapitulation phylogeny. This is a fundamental tenet of modern biology that derives from evolutionary theory, and is thus anathema to creationism as well as those opposed to freedom of choice. Ontogeny is the name for the process of development of a fertilized egg into a fully formed and mature living organism. Phylogeny, on the other hand, is the history of the evolution of a species, in this case the human being. During development, the fertilized egg progresses over 38 weeks through what is, in fact, a rapid passage through evolutionary history: From a single primordial cell, the conceptus progresses through being something of a protozoan, a fish, a reptile, a bird, a primate and ultimately a human being. There is a difference of opinion among scientists about the time during pregnancy when a human being can be said to emerge. But there is a general agreement that this does not happen until after the end of the first trimester.¹¹⁾Elie A. Schneour, “Life Doesn’t Begin, It Continues: Abortion Foes Err in Setting Conception as the Starting Point,” Los Angeles Times, Sunday, January 29, 1989, Part V., p. 5

Thus abortion is based on faked illustrations of Haeckel that were spurred for the purpose of giving evidence to support Darwin’s imagination. Haeckel’s illustrations were proven to be a fraud within two decades of his creating them. The above citation was written a century after Haeckel’s name went into the hall of shame for evolutionists as they attempted to sweep his blunder under the rug.

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), arguably the most influential evolutionists of recent generations, confessed: “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”¹²⁾Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, (Cambridge, MA: Belknap-Harvard Press, 1977), p. 127-128 This is what James Ferguson called “the new anthropology” meaning the new doctrine or idea of mankind as opposed to the former “old” biblical doctrine of man. “The new anthropology soon became a theoretical battleground between two opposed schools of thought on the origin of humans. The older and more established of these was ‘monogenism,’ the belief that all humankind, irrespective of color or other characteristics, was directly descended from Adam and from the single and original act of God’s creation. Monogenism was promulgated by the Church and universally accepted until the 18^th century, when opposition to theological authority began to fuel the rival theory of ‘polygenism,’ which held that different racial communities had different origins.”¹³⁾James Ferguson, “The Laboratory of Racism,” New Scientists, Vol. 103 (September 27, 1984), p. 18

Ken Ham recorded some of the diabolical acts of evolutionary racist overly zealous to prove their Darwinian ideology.

A gruesome trade in “missing link” specimens began with early evolutionary/racist idea….

There is documented evidence that the remains of perhaps 10,000 of Australia’s Aboriginal people were shipped to British museums in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they were the “missing link.”…

Evolutionists in the United States were also strongly involved in this flourishing “industry” of gathering specimens of “sub-humans.” The Smithsonian Institute in Washington holds the remains of 15,000 individuals of various races….

Museums were not only interested in bones, but in fresh skins as well. These would provide interesting evolutionary displays when stuffed.

Pickled Aboriginal brains were also in demand to try to prove that they were inferior to those of whites. It was Darwin, after all, who wrote that the civilized races would inevitably wipe out such lesser evolved “savage” ones.

Good prices were being offered for such specimens. There is no doubt from written evidence that many of the “fresh” specimens were obtained by simply going out and killing the Aboriginal people….

Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney for 20 years starting in 1874, was particularly heavily involved. He published a museum booklet, which appeared to include Aborigines under the designation of “Australian animals.” It also gave instructions not only on how to rob graves, but also on how to plug up bullet wounds in freshly killed “specimens.” Many freelance collectors worked under his guidance. Four weeks after he had requested skulls of Bungee (Russell River) blacks, a keen young science student sent him two, announcing that they, the last of their tribe, had just been shot. In the 1880s, Ramsay complained that laws recently passed in Queensland to stop Aborigines being slaughtered were affecting his supply.¹⁴⁾Ken Ham, Carl Wieland, Don Batton, One Blood: The Biblical Answer to Racism, Master Books (Green Forest, AR: 1999, 2007), pp. 119-121

How can Nye boldly lie about Darwin’s racism?

Bill Nye himself is not a racist. In his book he offers an appropriate explanation for a supposed evolutionary development which is not too far off of what creationists have taught long before evolutionists figured it out and were willing to forsake their racist opinions. Nye writes, “Any differences we traditionally associate with race are a product of our need for vitamin D and our relationship to the Sun. Just a few clusters of genes control skin color; the changes in skin color are recent; they’ve gone back and forth with migration…”¹⁵⁾Bill Nye, (ed. Corey Powell), Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, St. Martin’s Press (New York), 2014, p. 254-255 He indicates that it is the relation to a people group’s proximity to the equator after migrations effects how dark skin is developed. This does not appropriately explain the dark skin of Eskimo who inhabit northern regions. A proper explanation that fully fits the evidence is what is derived from the Bible.

How did the different ethnicities originate? God’s intervention at [the Tower of] Babel split humanity into 70 separate family groups. Since the genetic information of each group was now confined within a single family, it would not be long before dominant features began to surface among the early generations. And as time moved onward, the ruling families forced others to migrate elsewhere (all in accord with the overall plan of God), bringing to the forefront other dominant features that would physically set them apart from each other “nation.”¹⁶⁾Henry M. Morris III, The Book of Beginnings: A Practical Guide to Understand and Teach Genesis, Institute of Creation Research (Dallas, Texas: 2013, 2014), Vol. 2, p. 158

Or as Ken Ham has explained elsewhere, what we would call a genetic bottleneck. “Because of the new language and geographic barriers, the [people] groups no longer freely mixed with other groups, and the result was a splitting of the gene pool. Different cultures formed, with certain features becoming predominant within each group. The characteristics of each became more and more prominent as new generations of children were born.”¹⁷⁾Ken Ham, “Are There Really Different Races?,” https://answersingenesis.org/racism/are-there-really-different-races/

That is simply much more logical and scientifically sound.