Friday, April 05, 2013

Doug Groothuis Demonstrates His Intellect Again

Everybody laughed when creationist Ray Comfort thought "bibliophile" was an insult. But it was hardly the stupidest thing said by a creationist this week. I nominate this gem from "Douglas Groothuis, Ph. D.".

I'm not sure which is funnier: that he thinks that a scientific theory could possibly be disproved by a "moral argument", or that he thinks that biologists believe that "various races of humans may be more evolved than other races".

48 comments:

Garkbit said...

The US Declaration of Independence disproves Darwinism and Poe's Law strikes again.

Curt Cameron said...

#2: "More evolved"?

Anyway, I gotta give it to Ray Comfort that he was gracious in handling his error.

Bolero said...

"various races of humans may be more evolved than other races."

Groothuis claimed that Darwin said so. Question is: did Darwin say so?

"he thinks that a scientific theory could possibly be disproved by a "moral argument"

Well, I suppose he doesn't think that the theory is a scientific theory.

Bolero said...

Unfortunate misreading, Dr. Shallit. Groothuis didn't say he thinks that "various races of humans may be more evolved than other races." He said, "If step #1 is true then ..." But he doesn't accept step #1, does he now?

Diogenes said...

Does Groothius take comments? There are none as of now.

John Pieret said...

Bolero:

"various races of humans may be more evolved than other races."

Groothuis claimed that Darwin said so. Question is: did Darwin say so?


Yes and no. Here is a fairly detailed discussion from the Quote Mine Project:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#DarwinRaceQuotes

Jeffrey Shallit said...

You're right, Bolero, my comment was poorly phrased. I've fixed it now, and thanks for the pointer.

Thomas Hobbes said...

1. It depends. If he means some eternally immutable nature, then yes. If he mean humans can’t be differentiated from non-humans then no.

2. He’s wrong. Darwin didn’t state this. Tellingly, the phrase “more evolved than” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of biology. Genotypic and phenotypic variations among humans don’t make them relatively more or less evolved, or more or less human.

3. Where to start? First, 2 is wrong. Second, trying to get 3 from 2 requires a naturalistic fallacy. In times past, modern human ancestors may in fact have outcompeted, in an evolutionary sense, other hominin relatives. And we know that in more recent times peoples have certainly “prevailed upon” other peoples in cultural competition. But none of that tells us anything about the intrinsic value of humans, assuming we even know what he means by “intrinsic value”. Value implies a valuer. To whom does he think humanity should have intrinsic value? It certainly has intrinsic value to me.

4. Again, where to start? First, 3 is wrong; humanity can have intrinsic value to humans. But even if we admit 3 for the sake of argument, there are still plenty of philosophical arguments for establishing rights (though perhaps none that he likes). We can construct objective and universal human rights through social contract from purely self-interested motivations. I suspect the problem here is that when he uses terms like “essential nature”, “intrinsic value” and “objective and universal,” he’s really referring to transcendent, Platonic notions. But then that would render his argument meaningless since his argument would essentially devolve to: if we assume natural explanations, then my favored supranatural notions aren’t logically necessary, therefore I can’t admit natural explanations.

5. I agree with him that 4 is false! Unfortunately, I believe he really thinks 4 is true, but means to say that the consequent of 4 is false. I also agree that the consequent of 4 is false! The problem is that none of the reasons he thinks the consequent of 4 is false are valid. There is no point in addressing his remaining points since he is just drawing conclusions from false premises.

The Daily Fuel said...

More than an example of modes tollens, Groothuis's list is an example of non-sequiturs, which only a mind as biased for irrationality as his can proudly see as a specimen of shining logic.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said...

2. I'm not sure why this is conditionalized. Assuming the terms even make sense, why couldn't one race be more evolved even with an essential (supernatural) nature?

3. Why couldn't there be something intrinsically valuable about humans even if the races were different?

~~ Paul

Harriet said...

Of course, moral arguments have no place in deciding on whether a scientific theory is valid or not. But...

At one time, some biology texts DID claim that some races were "more evolved" than others. One such text was Hunter's Civic Biology, which was the text related to the famous "Scopes Trial".

via here (and yes, I've seen the original; it is on display at the Dayton, TN courthouse:

http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~ppennock/doc-scopesText.htm

"The Races of Man. - At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest race type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America"

Jeffrey Shallit said...

I can't quite figure out why a 100-year-old textbook is relevant to the modern theory of evolution, Harriet. Can you explain? What modern evolutionary biology textbooks talk about any organism being "more evolved" than another?

Do you think Doug Groothuis doesn't understand that every modern organism is equally "evolved", in the sense of being equally distant from an initial lifeform in time? If he does, what definition of "evolved" do you think he is using?

Harriet said...

"I can't quite figure out why a 100-year-old textbook is relevant to the modern theory of evolution, Harriet."

It isn't. My point was to point out where he MIGHT have got his idea that "some biologists believe that some races are more evolved than others".

Sure the book is way outdated but he probably finds Bronze Age manuscripts relevant.

"Do you think Doug Groothuis doesn't understand that every modern organism is equally "evolved", in the sense of being equally distant from an initial lifeform in time? "

This is probably uncharitable of me, but yes, I do. I'd be surprised if he did. I'd be even more surprised if he knew about different "branches" of homo.....

His definition of "evolved"??? Hard to tell; he probably has some half-baked metric describing a "distance" from his idea of what his deity created.

I know that I might be selling him short, but these people are not among the sharpest I have met.

Bolero said...

"or that he thinks that biologists believe that "various races of humans may be more evolved than other races"."

Is it just biologists who matter here, or philosophers who believe in evolution, too?

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D. said...

Darwin did hold what I said. Read The Decent of Man. No, not all species are equidistant from a common ancestor in terms of morphology or genetic structure, given Darwinism.

Further, why must Shallit always rudely ridicule and never be civil?

Joshua Zucker said...

Here's the comment I attempted to post over on his blog. He says something like "Nasty comments will not be posted", so I very carefully avoided nastiness, yet somehow I am still skeptical about whether this will ever show up there.

I don't understand a lot of the terms you use here, or follow much of your logic.

In (1), what is "essential nature" and how does the lack of design imply the lack of essential nature?

In (2), what does "more evolved" mean, and where does Darwin cite this in his work? Also, how does this logically follow from (1)?

In (3), how do differences between races and their evolutionary fitness (if there are any) prevent us from finding intrinsic value in all humans?

In (4), are there not other philosophical paths that lead to a value system in which humans have rights?

I also get very confused toward the end about whether you're referring to "if-then" statements as being true or false, or referring to the conclusions of those statements as being true or false. Your numbers seem to refer to if-then statements which you view as true, but then you later say things like "(4) is false" when you seem to mean that the conclusion of (4) is false.

Finally, Darwinism and evolution are not synonymous. Could you clarify whether any of this is an argument against evolution, or is it all an argument only against Darwin?

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Darwin did hold what I said.

Even if that is true (which is under dispute), why is it relevant? Newton made mistakes in Principia --- is it a requirement that modern-day physicisits accept all his mistakes as gospel?

Talking about Darwin and suggesting what he wrote is synonymous with the modern theory of evolution is dishonest.

No, not all species are equidistant from a common ancestor in terms of morphology or genetic structure, given Darwinism.

It looks to me like you're flailing around. What precisely did you mean by "more evolved"? How do differences in "morphology" lead to the logical necessity of racism?

why must Shallit always rudely ridicule and never be civil?

Ridiculous statements merit ridicule. If you don't want to be ridiculed, be honest. I see that you've now changed your original post. Shouldn't you be thanking us for helping you refine your ideas?

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Joshua:

Groothuis typically does not allow comments that disagree with him. He is very afraid of defending his arguments from non-believers. If he does not like your comment, he will make up some nonsense about how rude you've been as an excuse.

Thomas Hobbes said...

"If (1), then various races of humans may be more evolved (that is, more adaptively successful) than other races. Darwin himself states this in The Descent of Man."

"Darwin did hold what I said. Read The Decent of Man."

It would be helpful for you to provide a quote for where he states this in the Descent of Man.

Darwin obviously spends a lot of time in Descent discussing this question, and he puts forth for the sake of discussion arguments for and against what you claim he states, but to my reading he comes to a conclusion opposite what you suggest. At the end of Chapter VII - On The Races of Man his conclusion is:

"We have now seen that the characteristic differences between the races of man cannot be accounted for in a satisfactory manner by the direct action of the conditions of life, nor by the effects of the continued use of parts, nor through the principle of correlation. We are therefore led to inquire whether slight individual differences, to which man is eminently liable, may not have been preserved and augmented during a long series of generations through natural selection. But here we are at once met by the objection that beneficial variations alone can be thus preserved; and as far as we are enabled to judge (although always liable to error on this head) not one of the external differences between the races of man are of any direct or special service to him. The intellectual and moral or social faculties must of course be excepted from this remark; but differences in these faculties can have had little or no influence on external characters. The variability of all the characteristic differences between the races, before referred to, likewise indicates that these differences cannot be of much importance; for, had they been important, they would long ago have been either fixed and preserved, or eliminated. In this respect man resembles those forms, called by naturalists protean or polymorphic, which have remained extremely variable, owing, as it seems, to their variations being of an indifferent nature, and consequently to their having escaped the action of natural selection."

It seems pretty clear that he viewed racial differences as more or less trivial with respect to adaptiveness.

Not that it matters, as Jeffrey has pointed out.

Thomas Hobbes said...

"If (1), then various races of humans may be more evolved (that is, more adaptively successful) than other races. Darwin himself states this in The Descent of Man."

"Darwin did hold what I said. Read The Decent of Man."

It would be helpful for you to provide a quote for where he states this in the Descent of Man.

Darwin obviously spends a lot of time in Descent discussing this question, and he puts forth for the sake of discussion arguments for and against what you claim he states, but to my reading he comes to a conclusion opposite what you suggest. At the end of Chapter VII - On The Races of Man his conclusion is:

"We have now seen that the characteristic differences between the races of man cannot be accounted for in a satisfactory manner by the direct action of the conditions of life, nor by the effects of the continued use of parts, nor through the principle of correlation. We are therefore led to inquire whether slight individual differences, to which man is eminently liable, may not have been preserved and augmented during a long series of generations through natural selection. But here we are at once met by the objection that beneficial variations alone can be thus preserved; and as far as we are enabled to judge (although always liable to error on this head) not one of the external differences between the races of man are of any direct or special service to him. The intellectual and moral or social faculties must of course be excepted from this remark; but differences in these faculties can have had little or no influence on external characters. The variability of all the characteristic differences between the races, before referred to, likewise indicates that these differences cannot be of much importance; for, had they been important, they would long ago have been either fixed and preserved, or eliminated. In this respect man resembles those forms, called by naturalists protean or polymorphic, which have remained extremely variable, owing, as it seems, to their variations being of an indifferent nature, and consequently to their having escaped the action of natural selection."

It seems pretty clear that he viewed racial differences as more or less trivial with respect to adaptiveness.

Not that it matters, as Jeffrey has pointed out.

Harriet said...

Ok, first of all I am sorry for the joke name "Harriet" that appears on blogger. I am really Ollie Nanyes (I don't want to hide behind anonymity). Now as far as:
"
"Darwin did hold what I said.

Even if that is true (which is under dispute), why is it relevant? Newton made mistakes in Principia --- is it a requirement that modern-day physicisits accept all his mistakes as gospel? ""

This is why conservatives often misunderstand others. They see others as mirror images of themselves; after all they've staked out a claim in a book so why wouldn't we? The idea that one might discard a current position because new evidence contradicts it is completely foreign to them.

Bayesian Bouffant, FCD said...

Doug Groothuis, Ph.D.: "Further, why must Shallit always rudely ridicule and never be civil?"
.
If you do not wish to be ridiculed, be less ridiculous.

Bolero said...

I'm a bit dissatisfied with my previous question. I'd like to ask it differently:

"or that he thinks that biologists believe that "various races of humans may be more evolved than other races"."

Is it just biologists who matter here, or anthropologists who believe in evolution, too?

Kerry Liles said...

Seems like the link to the comment by Groothuis is broken? (at least at the time of this post)...

Joshua Zucker said...

Apparently your blogspot link to Groothuis's original post is now broken because you have it at blogspot.ca and the link has to be blogspot.com or something like that? Weird.

The post is now also dated April 6, and perhaps has some small edits from the original version that we read?

John Stockwell said...


Darwin did hold what I said. Read The Decent of Man. No, not all species are equidistant from a common ancestor in terms of morphology or genetic structure, given Darwinism.

Further, why must Shallit always rudely ridicule and never be civil?


Dr. Groothuis does not give us a reference. Likely the passage in question is some part of the paragraph from Chapter IV of Darwin's Descent of Man


"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies?between the Tarsius and the other Lemurid [JSW: Tarsiers and Lemurs]?between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus [JSW: platypus] or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.'


The paragraph is an explanations as to why there are breaks in the continuity between species.
Given that Darwin is a 19th century man who is living in a time when idigeneous people's *were* being exteriminated, I don't think that we can fault him too much for his language and attitudes.

It is clear that he does have a notion of "higher" and "lower" forms, particularly when talking about humans---a concept that does not exist in modern biology.

To claim that modern science holds such notions is a false claim. Is Dr. Groothuis so ignorant of science to be unaware that scientists revise their theories and that scientific theories are not religious or worldview philosophies? I think not. People such as myself have informed him of these facts time and again, but he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge or even discuss such an idea.

So, basically Dr. Groothuis is building a strawman "Darwinism" from ideas that were long abandoned by scientists.

As Dr. Groothuis has long pursued such tactics in discussions of evolution, can Dr. Shallit be condemned for ridiculing the ridiculous?

John Stockwell said...

Dr. Groothuis generally does not allow opposing views on his blog. He tends to ban people who disagree with him as being "uncivil".

Kamsat said...

"What modern evolutionary biology textbooks talk about any organism being "more evolved" than another?"

I'm not sure if the absence of such talk would be of any proof. The absence can simply be chalked up to fear of the PC police. (Note, I said "can", not "should".)


I appreciate the desire for definitions here, and I'd like to add one more: What does intrinsic worth mean? (And how do we distinguish it from extrinsic worth?)

Diogenes said...

I've never seen anyone put "PhD" in their online identity before.

When scientists present evidence for evolution, creationists say degrees don't matter, but give one of them a PhD and he'll mention it 20 times a day.

Diogenes said...

We have to point out that if Groothius' logic were valid, it would disprove CREATIONISM.

First of all, creationists were always more racist than evolutionists in every historical era.

Creationists had about 12 different ways of promoting racism via creationism and vice versa. One of the most common was to say that human races had all degenerated, but some had degenerated more than others.

This argument was often combined with other racist creationist arguments, for example, that black people inherited the Curse of Ham, that God physically changed the races at Babel, etc.

The Seventh Day Adventists who founded Flood Geology and Young Earth creationism believed that blacks and apes were the product of humans [whites] mixing with animals and producing deformed offspring. Ellen G. White, George M. Price, and Frank Lewis Marsh believed that.

Young Earth Creationism was largely inspired by the Adventist horror of race-mixing.

Every major creationist up until the 1980's was racist, including Henry Morris.

So if creationism implies that some races are more DEvolved than others, doesn't Groothius' moral argument disprove creationism?

Anonymous said...

It might be pointed out that if there were racist implications to evolution, those would be relevant only to evolution within "mankind", that is, "micro"evolution. And many of the creationists insist on telling us that they accept microevolution - see, for example "baramin". A baramin is a "created kind", and is somewhat larger than a species, perhaps something as large as a taxonomic family.

TomS

Robert Byers said...

It is important today if evolutionism teaches that human identities are more intelligent/therefore superior over other identities.
If Darwin taught this then its a reflection on the merits of evolution and those advocating it.
It does matter and should be addressed.

I read the descent of man and it seemed to me Darwin did not believe the races etc were evolved differently.
He strove to show this by observation.
Now other evolutionists were already saying there was inferior/superior races of man due to evolution progression of the different races etc.
He didn't want to lose their support and so complimented them on their work but , seemly, didn't agree with them.
After Darwin however evolutionists did pretty much all say this or that people was superior/inferior due to evolutionary processes.

Darwin did in his book, insist, women were intellectually biologically inferior to men. He held out hope to them that by careful breeding they could evolve up to mens superior smarts.

Creationists always believe in the common origin of mankind and no differences in intellect between mankind.
Perhaps in the late centuries a few could be found saying this or that but they were the exception and probably under pressure to admit to a common belief in educational circles or some elements of the people.
When you all come from Adam and Noah's family a mere few thousand years ago its unlikely such beliefs lead to ideas of intellectual differences.

Especially amongst the british and other northern Europeans who knew they had a inferior heritage until the protestant reformation and then in order to say they were now top dog had to believe man's intelligence is all related to free will.

It is true that it was evolution moving through educated circles in the 1800's and later that first gave voice to ideas of racial superiority of races.
Before this is was rare or none existent.

In fact I find ALWAYS the idea of genetics and intelligence being discussed by evolutionists and supporters everywhere!
It seems to me its becoming fashionable again.
Someone should ask organized evolution if indeed there is racial differences in intelligence due to genetics and this due to evolution!!
Then ask creationists.
This issue does now constantly come up and helps us.

There is no differences between people as we are made in Gods image and our intelligence is in our soul and not related to our brain .
it is the brain concept that is behind the race/smarts thing.
They do measure ape brains relative to us and science fiction teaches big brains as a future thing for us and aliens. Star trek anyone!

It would be funny if race/smarts seriously undermines evolution acceptance.

KeithB said...

Byers:
Are you saying that people with Down's Syndrome have developmentally delayed *soul's*?

What about people with Alzheimer's?

I think you should think this through.

On another note, Jared Diamond's new book _The World Until Yesterday_ is probably relevant here. I have not yet read it, but he has nothing but admiration for the intelligence of "primitive" people.

Diogenes said...

Byers has the racism of his creationist heroes, all the founders of creationism, mixed up with evolutionists!

Creationists always believe in the common origin of mankind and no differences in intellect between mankind.

An outright lie. Many creationist believed in polygenism, e.g. whites were created in Genesis Ch. 2 and non-whites in Genesis Ch. 1. Hitler and the Nazis were polygenist creationists.

The founders of Flood Geology believed that non-white races and apes evolved from humans [whites] mating with animals. Ellen G. White, George M. Price, and Harold W. Clark believed that.

(Note that in my comment above I said Frank Lewis Marsh believed in human-animal mating; I was wrong; it was his colleague, Harold W. Clark; both were students of George M. Price, who flopped back and forth on the issue of human-animal mating producing blacks.)

As for "no differences in intellect", creationists were almost all racist until the 1980's and said non-whites were more degenerate and more DEvolved than whites.

Remember Jerry Bergman's letter to the Ku Klux Klan?

Moreover, traditionally and up until today conservative Christians taught and still teach now that women are intellectually inferior to men.

Byers: Perhaps in the late centuries a few could be found saying this or that but they were the exception

Bullshit, Byers. That was the RULE among creationists, not the exception, until the 1980's. Henry Morris, George M. Price, Frank L. Marsh, Harold W. Clark, Ellen G. White, Arthur Custance, William Bell Riley, Gerald Burton Winrod, Gerald L.K. Smith, Jerry Bergman etc. etc. were all racist or promoted racism. The ONLY exception was Walter Lammerts.

Moreover, MANY CREATIONISTS IN THE 1930's SUPPORTED HITLER AND THE CHRISTIAN NAZI REGIME because they said Nazi Germany was a Christian country and they agreed with Hitler's treatment of the Jews. Creationists William Bell Riley, Gerald Burton Winrod, Gerald L.K. Smith, Arno C. Gaebelein, and Elizabeth Dilling all supported Nazi Germany and Hitler's policies toward the Jews in the 1930's and some continued after the start of Roosevelt's war.

When you all come from Adam and Noah's family a mere few thousand years ago its unlikely such beliefs lead to ideas of intellectual differences.

NO Byers, major creationists were almost all racist until the 1980's and even today they all believe that women are intellectually inferior to men. Creationists believed non-white races were MORE DEVOLVED than the white race, or that whites had mated with animals, thus producing blacks and apes; or that black people had the Curse of Ham; or that God did a miracle at the Tower of Babel.

The pagan Greeks thought Ethiopians were virtuous; early medieval Christians invented the idea of the sexually degenerate, immoral, physically ugly African.

Diogenes said...

Byers: It is important today if evolutionism teaches that human identities are more intelligent/therefore superior over other identities.

But historically, that's what every major creationist (except Walter Lammerts) taught up until the 1980's, including the founders of Byers' own Flood Geology-- Ellen G. White, George M. Price, Harold W. Clark, Frank L. Marsh, William Jennings Bryan, and Henry Morris. They were all either racists or promoters of racism.

William Jennings Bryan supported white supremacy and Jim Crow.

Byers: If Darwin taught this then its a reflection on the merits of evolution and those advocating it.

Actually YOUR CREATIONIST HEROES taught that, so it's a reflection on the merits of creationism and those advocating it.

Byers: It does matter and should be addressed.

OK-- then when will creationists address the fact that all major creationists (except Lammerts) were racist until the 1980's?

Byers: After Darwin however evolutionists did pretty much all say this or that people was superior/inferior due to evolutionary processes.

But creationists believe in superfast DEGENERATION/devolution, and they believed and taught that non-white races were MORE DEVOLVED than the white race.

Moreover, creationists were always more racist than Darwinists in every historical era, and Nazism was anti-Darwinist and creationist.

Byers: Darwin did in his book, insist, women were intellectually biologically inferior to men.

Like every single Christian authority up until the 1970's? Many conservative Christians, even female ones, still teach that women are intellectually inferior due to their biology. Creationist Ann Coulter says that.

Robert Byers said...

KeithB
You bring up a good point.
It is impossible for a bible believer to believe there is any difference between any human being in their thinking abilities.
Therefore we, and I do, only believe there is interferece with the memory.
All problems with human beings thinking comes from errors in the triggering mechanism for memory.
Babies, old age, Autism spectrum, mental retardation are merely this triggering promblem.
I do think healing could be done or aimed at better based on YEC ideas on human intelligence and problems thereto.

Robert Byers said...

Diogenes.
Your just plain wrong.
evangelical christians and so they were YEC creationists never believed in any differences between mankind.
If you find a few obscure people on the fringe saying this or that its not accurate sampling.
PEople mating with animals!!!
Such a idea or a possibility to have offspring would be a rejection of the bible.
99.99% never would think that or even heard about it.
Your history is bad.
Creationists right away attacked evolution because it did teach, by many of them though not Darwin, that people evolved from apes and so there was no common heritage of blood.
I know of these writings that reach large audiuences.
I know none of these people you quote and they moved in very obscure circles.

Biblical creationists always held and demanded the intellectual equality of mankind because we all have souls made in GOds image. Our brains are left on earth but in the afterlife we all think as we always could. In fact better.
Your accusations of pro-Nazi or racist, till the '80's, are just funny hogwash.

Again a few people saying this or that is not accurate sampling.
Its not bible believing humanity that segregated mankind on identity with important results.

It was the educated classes acceptance of evolution of man that was the intellectual and moral foundation for ideas about identities from the late 19th and early 20th century.

DEVOLUTION! What a wild accusation.
Christians always evangelized natives with the confidence they could understand anything in the bible and read .

I'm not blaming evolution for evil but only it frustrates opposition to injustice when touching on identity.
Just google race/intelligence and one will see modern teachings on race as genetically affecting humanity.
Sex too.
Its not coming from my crowd nor did it ever.
Creationism has the truth and in the past and present demands that men are equal in thinking abilities from birth.
Anything else is a rejection of the bible and only comes from philosophy's that reject scriptures teaching on this.
Score this for the good guys.

Diogenes said...

Byers,

You are apparently unaware that your creationism was founded entirely by racists, and almost entirely by supporters of eugenics. All the creationists (except Walter Lammerts) up to the 1980's were hysterical racists, including George M. Price, the founder of Flood Geology. Almost all creationists up to the 1970's supported eugenics. In the 1930's many American creationists supported Hitler, Nazism and fascism.

In the 1920's William Jennings Bryan supported white supremacy and Jim Crow laws, and opposed legal efforts to stop the KKK (also anti-Darwinist) from lynching black people.

When W. J. Bryan was asked at the Scopes Trial to name one "scientist" who supported creationism and Noah's Flood, THE ONLY ONE HE COULD NAME WAS *GEORGE M. PRICE*. Who was Price?

George M. Price was the founder of Flood Geology and Young Earth Creationism. He coined major creationists arguments still in use today, such as "scientists date the fossils from the strata, and date the strata from the fossils" and “the so-called geological column exists nowhere in the world.” He also innovated the argument about the Lewis Overthrust/Chief Mountain (so-called “upside down fossils”) in Montana where the fossils are out of order due to an overthrust of strata. Price and all the early Flood Geologists were Seventh Day Adventists who believed that Ellen G. White's racist and occult fever dreams were divinely inspired. Many (not all) important creationists did believe that non-white races were produced by humans mating with animals, following White.

Ellen G. White was the prophetess of Seventh Day Adventism. After she came out of her occult fever dream, she said that race-mixing was a "Base crime" and the cause of God's genocide of the human race in Noah's Flood. She used the phrase "the amalgamation of man and beast" to describe the origin of all non-whites. In the 1860’s, when she was active, “amalgamation” meant race-mixing, but she applied it to humans mating with animals as well. She was clear that the results were black people. The phrase "amalgamation" for inter-species breeding appears all through creationist books up to the 1950's.

White: “Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals and in certain races of men.” [Ellen G. White, 3 SpG 75; 1 SpP 78]

White: “But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere” [Ellen G. White, 3 SpG 64; 1 SpP 69]

Four years after White wrote this, in 1868, her close family friend Uriah Smith wrote a book that defended and promoted her clear meaning that blacks and Indians resulted from humans and animals mating. Ellen G. White helped to sell Uriah Smith’s book and thus approved of its content.

Adventist Uriah Smith, 1868: “If [anyone denied human-beast crossing], they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, etc. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion.”

Diogenes said...

George M. Price wrote in his books that blacks, Asians AND APES were the result of humans (whites) mating with animals.

Price: “These present-day anthropoid apes may be just as much a product of modern conditions as are the negroid or the Mongolian types of mankind. And if I were compelled to choose between saying that the apes are degenerate or hybridized men and that man is a developed ape, I am sure it would not take me very long to decide which it would be. Nor do I think it would take any well-informed scientist long to make the choice.” [George M. Price, "The Phantom of Organic Evolution", 1924, p. 209-10]

Price used poetry to trace the human family tree, emphasizing the mental "devolution" of the Negro race:
Price: "The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became a blank."
[George M. Price, cited by Ronald Numbers, "The Creationists", p.102]

“His mind became a blank” clearly means that creationists believe blacks are intellectually inferior.

Price against race-mixing: “The believer in the Bible will also point out a moral and social reason for the differentiation of mankind into distinct races. He reads in the early record of the post-diluvian world that all of mankind were of one speech and of one race… The record is that God again interfered [at Babel], and... scattered the fragments of the race abroad upon the face of the earth. ...we may well suppose that the barriers of race and colour were also interposed at this same time, these racial barriers assisting in segregating the people of the world... thus most effectively preventing them from ever again uniting. And there is no doubt that if human beings had always been true to natural instincts as are the species among the higher animals, there never would have been *AMALGAMATION* among these races which had thus been set apart from one another by a special intervention of Providence. ” [Price, "The Phantom of Organic Evolution", 1924, p. 106, emphasis added]

All early creationists insisted that Satan was the architect of the unnatural desire to mix races. Satan himself had been “the real instigator of all the mixing and crossing of the races of mankind... which God designed should remain separate. ” [ref: G.M. Price letter to Martin Gardner, May 13, 1952, Gardner Papers, courtesy of Martin Gardner, cited by Ronald Numbers, Ironic Heresy]

Price always believed that some races were more "devolved" than others, though he went back and forth on the subject of whether, in addition, blacks and Asians were also the products of human-animal mixing.

Diogenes said...

Price’s student, Harold W. Clark, coined the modern meaning of the term "creationism." ("Creationism" used to mean the belief that God created a new soul for each baby; Clark redefined it to mean anti-evolution.) Clark also invented the popular creationist argument of "ecological zonation”, in which Noah’s Flood supposedly produces the order of fossils in the geological strata because plants and animals—e.g. man and dinosaurs—lived in different "eco-zones" before the Flood, thus mimicking evolution.

Clark was consistently in support of the animal amalgamation theory, the “wretched theory that there are some races of men ‘still in existence’ who are only sub-men, mere hybrids, half-human, but half-something else,” as Price himself put it, during those times when he was against the theory. [Ronald Numbers, "The Creationists", 2006, p. 147]

Frank L. Marsh was a hugely important creationist who coined the terms “baraminology” and “created kind” and defined the creationist concept of “variation within a kind.” Marsh was an Adventist but he disagreed with Price, Clark, and White about human-animal mating. He acknowledged that White believed and stated that non-whites were produced by human-animal mating, but he regarded her divinely inspired writings as being authored by the Holy Spirit, so her interpretation of her own words was irrelevant.

Marsh said instead that animals and plants could only mate with their “created kind” or “baramin” as Marsh coined the term [it’s bad Hebrew], so he opposed the idea of humans mating with animals. However, he had his own racist theory. Marsh calls Satan a “master genetic engineer” who is constantly, all the time, even today, causing deleterious mutations in animals and plants. Humans [the white race] were partially protected by God from Satan’s deleterious mutations, by some kind of invisible force field, but the Curse of Ham was put on Noah’s grandson Canaan who fathered the non-white races. The Curse of Ham caused God to life the protective “force field” from the Hamites, so Satan could have a free hand giving them deleterious mutations like black skin, kinky hair, etc.

Diogenes said...

Frank L. Marsh: “True, God created only one race, Adam and Eve. But as we look around the earth today we find… that we can line representative individuals of man up in a row in such a way as to have the color grade from white at one end of the row, through ruddy, yellow, red and brown to ebony black at the other end. Where did all these endless varieties come from? Apparently the devil has been busy meddling with the processes of mutation and amalgamation. The one race of Adam, a race of ruddy hue (3SpG 34), has become more and more confused until today we recognize at least three basic races designated as Caucasian, Ethiopian, and Mongolian. [p. 58-59]

…As was true before the flood, it was doubtless true after the flood that God did not cause the development of races. It was very likely again the work of Satan who wa doing all in his power to confuse and destroy harmony in the human family. It it is true that our bodily characteristics as well as our dispositions and natural “slants” are dependent for their specific nature upon the chromatin material in the forty-eight [human] chromosomes … We can see how chemical changes in some of these genes could cause changes in the expression of external characters… such as receding brow in place of a high one, kinky, flat hairs in place of round, straight ones, heavily pigmented skin in place of a more lightly pigmented one, prominent cheek bones in place of “normal” ones… Such sudden changes are spoken of as mutations and are very possibly the explanation for the development of races. The curse of God rested in a special way upon the descendants of Canaan because he manifested the same degraded characteristics which had been developed by his father Ham. Again, this curse was doubtless manifested in a more complete removal of God’s protection from his line, thus giving Satan free rein in accomplishing a greater degree of degredation [sic], in some strains of this race, possibly, than in either of the other two races. It is here that we may justifiably turn for an explanation of the physical conditions of the Hottentots and Bushmen rather than to an origin in some fabled man-beast cross [as Price, Clark, and White asserted].
…We do find a considerable depth of pigmentation in most of the recognized descendants of Ham, but we likewise find black skins on individuals who are full-blooded members of the Caucasian and of the Mongolian races. Heavy pigmentation, therefore, wherever seen is without doubt one evidence of the mulititudinous abnormalities brought in by Satan, but certainly can not be a mark of special curse.
[p.466 / 64]: This discussion leads our thoughts a little distance in the direction of an understanding of how Satan has worked through manipulation of biological laws to accomplish the marring and destruction of that which God made very good. [p. 62-64]
[Frank Lewis Marsh, Fundamental Biology (1941). Chapter 9. Confusion of the Human Family by Amalgamation. pp. 58-59, 62-64. Reprinted in: Creationism in Twentieth-Century America, Vol. 8, The Early Writings of Harold W. Clark and Frank Lewis Marsh. Edited by Ronald Numbers. Garland Publishing, New York & London. (1995).]

Marsh calls white people turning black, due to Satan’s genetic “degredation” [sic], “the marring and destruction of that which God made very good [white people].”

Diogenes said...

And returning to the Scopes Trial, the architect of the creationist attempt at censorship was William Bell Riley, who founded fundamentalism as a political movement. W. B. Riley was the one who called white supremacist W. J. Bryan and asked him to do the prosecution in the Scopes Trial. Riley was an insane anti-Semite; he started citing "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" in 1921. In 1925, Gerald Burton Winrod, another lunatic anti-Semite, tried to get Darwinism banned in Arkansas. Then W. B. Riley and Winrod teamed up to get Darwinism banned in Minnesota.

In the 1930's, Riley and Winrod became supporters of Hitler, especially his anti-Semitic policies. Winrod was called the "Jayhawk Nazi".

Riley wrote pamphlets like "Wanted: A World Leader" in support of Hitler, and "Why Shiver at the Sight of a Shirt?". This pamphlet defended all “shirts” (fascists): "black shirts", "brown shirts" (Nazis), and silver shirts (U.S. fascists). Riley had a big megachurch in Minneapolis where he preached anti-Semitism to 3,000 people, and the fascist Silver Shirts attended his church. Riley and Winrod were avid promoters of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." ["God's Empire", William Vance Trollinger]

"The Protocols" says the Jews are behind the campaign to spread Darwinism and Communism, which Hitler and many creationists believed. Riley applauded Hitler's courageous efforts to "foil the Jew's nefarious plot."

"The Protocols" of course had been promoted in the early 20's by creationist William Cameron, the real author of "The International Jew: the World's Foremost Problem," which wasn't really written by Henry Ford.

That book, which again emphasizes that Jews are to blame for the spread of Darwinism and Communism, was a favorite of Hitler's. Hitler distributed it to Nazi Party members and, because the book was attributed to Henry Ford, Hitler became a fan of Henry Ford and hung Ford's picture behind his desk.

Another supporter of "The Protocols" was Arno C. Gaebelein, who, as key editor of the Scofield Reference Bible, played a key role in popularizing post-millenial dispensationalism in America. Gaebelein travelled to Nazi Germany and wrote to his fellow Hitler supporter, William Bell Riley, who read the letter to his congregation of 3,000:

Gaebelein: "A new Germany has arisen, and I am sorry to say much of what we read in our American newspapers is nothing but slander… There is no question in my mind that Hitler was an instrument of God to save Germany and Europe from the Red Beast." [Letter from Gaebelein to Riley, Sept. 12, 1937; see "God's Empire", William V. Trollinger, 1990, p.74]

Another notorious creationist and extreme anti-Semite was Gerald L. K. Smith, who briefly joined the fascist Silver Shirts in the 1930’s. Later Smith built the “Christ of the Ozarks,” the biggest (and ugliest) Jesus statue in North America, and in Arkasas he organized an annual outdoor passion play, based on the anti-Semitic passion play at Oberammergau, Germany, that Hitler favored. After WWII, Smith moved to California and helped to organize the super-racist super-creationist Christian Identity movement, whose members murdered Jewish talk show host Alan Berg. Smith, like many other creationists, was an avid promoter of "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

Robert Byers said...

Diogenes.
Despite your volume your plain wrong.
Creationism was not invented or created by a few people.
its a conclusion of bible believing Christians in hugh numbers since forever.
Seventh day adventists , people who go to church on saturday, are a obscure and , I understand, group that was not accepted as evangelical Protestants.
They were consider strange and rejecting common beliefs such as sunday church going.

That a few of them started organized writings on creationism is not relevant to our history.
This man and women had strange ideas that no one would ever agree with it.
They are unrelated to evangelical christianity and indeed probably they are like a cult.
nobody ever said these things in print or sermon to our masses.
everything was always the same idea.
Adam/Eve are the origin for all men.
no breeding with devils/animals ever happened.

if they were amongst the first few writers in organized creationism its just a special case since few people cared to write about it.
No creationists of our group, hugh numbers in historic North america, ever said anything other then what we say today.

by the way historically women were not regarded as acceptable as teachers in our churches and so this chick with the dreams would itself nullify your accusations here.

Anyways YEC has a morally and intellectually perfect record on how man is united in his identity from Adam/Noah and no acceptance of intellectual/moral innate differences.
99% and 99% of leaders.
Modern cReationism really came from a small number of creationist writers starting with the great Dr Henry Morris.

it is instead evolutionism that gave the educated/establishments of modern nations 19th/early 20th legitimacy to believe mankind differed innately in smarts.
It probably made little impact but surely kept mankind down and out a little.
They still do it.
They just switch the lists of ups and downs.

Anyways once again creationism is the conclusions of hugh numbers and its not the conclusions of a few obscure entry level cult people.
A coincidence of interest .
How you could think this was really true?

Robert Byers said...

diogenes
I think my comment was erased because of signing problems.
I repeat.

YEC creationism is a historic opinion of hugh numbers of people since forever.
you accuse us all by quoting a few entry level writers.
First seventh day adventists, they go to church on saturday, were always seen as not true evangelicals and even today are called a cult by some of us.
the things you mention by this man and woman are absurd ideas that never would even of been mentioned ibn our circles.
They are a rejection of what the bible says.
by the way a woman would not of been allowed to even be a teacher much less teaching from dreams.

organized creationism actually began with the great Dr Henry Morris after WW11.
its just a coincidence that some goofy writers spoke on these subjects.
They are not us and never reprsented the 99% of the people and 995 of leaders who always said what we said today.
The bible teaches all mankind come from Adam/Noah and no devils/animals are in the dna mix.
Its laughable you try to paint us with this.

Instead it was evolutionism that was accepted by the educated/ establishment of Europe etc in the 19th/20th century and a little or a bit more allowed ideas of intellectual superior/inferior amongst mankind.
Probably little impact but this is the truth.

Creationism morally and intellectually was perfect in its conclusions by 99% of us.
This Price gut is just off broadway and never represented or influence evangelical christianity or YEC creationism.
These people are not of our religion or conclusions and 99% of us never in the past or the present heard of them.
They are not in our family tree.
You fail in your case to discredit us.

Diogenes said...

Byers,

All your creationist innovators were racist, INCLUDING Henry Morris.

Byers: organized creationism actually began with the great Dr Henry Morris after WW11.

Your statements are CONTRADICTED BY HENRY MORRIS HIMSELF! Morris wrote a book called History of Modern Creationism in which he gave great credit to all the racists I listed-- Your hero Henry Morris himself credited racist George M. Price, racist Frank L. Marsh, racist pro-Nazi William Bell Riley, Nazi Werner von Braun, etc. etc. with founding modern creationism.

Who should I believe about the history of creationism-- you, or the authority you're citing? Henry Morris was racist and he himself says the racists I listed founded creationism and gave him his best ideas.

You go read Henry Morris' book History of Modern Creationism and see what the racist Morris himself says about how many racists gave him his best ideas. He loved pro-Nazi racists like Werner von Braun and William Bell Riley.

Your hero Henry Morris was himself a racist (proven here) who copied his ideas from racists.

Have you even read Morris' 1961 book The Genesis Flood? He copies the idea of "Variation within a kind" from racist Frank L. Marsh-- if you look at Morris' Figure 5, it's cited to Frank L. Marsh, and MORRIS' FIGURE 5, COPIED FROM MARSH, IS BASED ON THE IDEA THAT RACE-MIXING CAUSED THE GENOCIDE OF NOAH'S FLOOD.

Notice how Fig. 5 shows race-mixing before Noah's Flood and it's cited to racist Frank L. Marsh!

Moreover, The Genesis Flood copies its geological arguments straight from racist George M. Price, including Morris' whole CHAPTER about the Lewis overthrust. Go look up Morris' citations to George M. Price.

Moreover, Morris copied his other racist ideas from racist creationist Arthur Custance.

Do you have ANY IDEAS that DO NOT COME FROM RACISTS? NO.

Where do you think YOUR CREATIONIST idea of "variation within a kind" came from? From racist Frank L. Marsh, as I proved.

Where do you think YOUR CREATIONIST idea of "Flood Geology" came from? From racist George M. Price, as I proved.

Where do you think THE CREATIONIST idea of "eco-zoning" as an explanation of the order of the fossils came from? From racist Harold W. Clark, as I proved.

Where do you think THE CREATIONIST idea of "scientists date the fossils from the strata, and date the strata from the fossils" came from? From racist George M. Price, as I proved.

Where do you think THE CREATIONIST idea of "hydrological sorting explains the order of the fossils" came from? From racist Henry Morris.

Also Jerry Bergman promoted racism.

You say these people are not REAL Christians? OK, neither was Henry Morris and you're not a REAL Christian either, because you believe their anti-Christian ideas, so you, Byers, are not a Christian by your own standard.

Byers, go to Henry Morris' book The Genesis Flood right now, look at his Figure 5. Whom does he cite it to?

Robert Byers said...

Diogenes.
Again even if a few people are quoted about things its not relevant to YEC creationism.
i don't know anything about these pre Morris writers.
The flood never was attributed to anything other then evil in the world.
Now you have confused matters.
Before the flood there was no races.
I think some obscure people did suggest that there was breeding between people and demons and this was a part of the evil but thats unrelated to race.
Everyone was the same race.

If mOrris quoted him then okay its about some early writer.
Yert seventh day adventists were often seen as a cult and not us.
Morris could of noted any people in any faith.
Still the facts are clear.
YEC always was consistent as today that all men are of one blood and one and thers no possibility of difference between peoples innately in smarts etc.

99% of the mass and leaders thought and said so.
A few people changes nothing of the common opinion.

There was no support for nazism and i never heard of these people.
You have no case for your accusations.
Its silly.
Dr Morris is considered the first relevant YEC creationist and this because few people did any work or writing on the subject from a scientific investigation.
Thats why he is the first.
Before it was few and far between.
These obscure few before are not a accurate sample of the people and leaders and zillions of writings or teachings/sermons on Genesis and man.

It is not the same thing as in evolutionism.
it was the essence and a common opinion of the top evolutionists that race was a important factor in human smarts etc.
It was a tenet of the belief.
not just a few people on the fringe.
It was a influence on anyone who accepted and understood evolutionary concepts back in the beginning.
Evolution taught race affected brains.
YEC taught race did not because we were created all from one pair and its impossible for time to have changed our innate intelligence etc.

YEC and Evangelical christianity always stood firm on the equality of mankind including women.
As the great common opinion of leaders and people.
A few writers at entry level of very ill-interrested subjects like early creationism changes none of my facts.

You must demonstrate opinion polls and polls of leadership and a surrey of zillions of bible commentaries dealing with Genesis before you can define creationism as you define it.
Quote mining three people no ones ever heard is worthless in making a case.

Creationists could show early evolutionists mostly at the top considered it right and reasonable that there were genetic differences in intelligence between the races etcf.
My observation of today is that some/many still do.
YEC based on the bible comes out again with the better conclusions.



Jeff Orchard said...

I posted a short critique, since Douglas didn't post the comment I submitted to his blog.
http://intelligent-falling.blogspot.ca/2013/04/debunking-douglas-groothuis-argument.html

IThinkWithMy Liver said...

"When scientists present evidence for evolution, creationists say degrees don't matter, but give one of them a PhD and he'll mention it 20 times a day."

LOL! So true, Diogenes.

And exactly why science-minded folks need to fight back just as dirty.

The Principle of Explosion in Logic: From one error, everything follows.

Creaturds need to be taught this the hard way (the fun way, for us).