After Charles Darwin published Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, evolution was used to justify the discrimination of so-called human races.  Darwin and others claimed that there were at least 5 distinct races of men with those having the darkest skin considered to be nearly on the same level as apes and even lower. 

Ernst Haeckel, a famed German scientist and contemporary of Darwin wrote:

Now, if instituting comparisons in both directions, we place the lowest and most ape-like men (the Austral Negroes, Bushmen, and Andamans, etc.), on the one hand, together with the most highly developed animals, for instance, with apes, dogs, and the elephants, and on the other hand, with the most highly developed men–Aristotle, Newton, Spinoza, Kant, Lamarck, or Goethe–we can then no longer consider the assertion, that the mental life of the higher mammals has gradually developed up to that of man, as in any way exaggerated….In order to be convinced of this important result, it is above all things necessary to study and compare the mental life of wild savages and of children.  At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes.”   “In many of these languages there are numerals only for one, two, and three: no Australian language counts beyond four.  Very many wild tribes can count no further than ten or twenty, whereas some very clever dogs have been made to count up to forty and even beyond sixty.

The evidence of evolutionary fueled racism over the past 150 years is overwhelming.  The damage has been great in many areas of the world, especially in Australia, Africa and the United States.  Thousands upon thousands of darker skinned humans have been tortured, abused and murdered by the insensitive effects of evolutionary racism.  (Evolutionary Racism, Darwin’s Bodysnatchers)

Thankfully good science has proven that there is only one race of humans.  When the human genome was decoded in the 1990s, it was proven that regardless of skin color, height, hair color, eye color, language, we are all one race.  One report put it this way:

In an article in the summer issue of the Journal of Counseling and Development, Cameron and Wycoff argue that the term “race” is so meaningless that it ought to be discarded.

“In the field of genetics, researchers have concluded that the genetic differences between the so-called races account for only 0.012 percent of human biological variation…. What the facts show is that there are differences among us, but they stem from culture, not race.”

In fact, some reports from the Human Genome Project said that there was more genetic variance between family members than between the so-called races.

Sadly, there still are a number of people that carry the evolutionary prejudices of race with them.  Periodically we hear about racial hate crimes and hate groups in the news. 

I only bring all of this up to show my surprise and concern about a new report from a prominent evolutionist that wants teachers across the globe to use skin color to teach evolution.  While his concept does not involve any direct form of racism, one can easily see how it could be used by racist groups to fuel their vicious and cruel fires of prejudice and bigotry.

Dr. Nina Jablonski, professor and head of the Department of Anthropology at Penn State University, wants teachers to use skin color in humans to teach evolution by natural selection to their students.  According to Dr. Jablonski;

There is an inherent level of interest in skin color and for teachers, that is a great bonus — kids want to know,…The mechanism of evolution can be completely understood from skin color.

Supposedly, our human ancestors gradually lost their furry skin so that they could better cool themselves by sweating.  With the loss of all the body hair, their skin was exposed to the sun,  Those individuals that lived in sunny tropical locations that developed darker skin were more likely to survive since the darker skin reduced the amount folate damage which reduces the number of children who survive.  On the other hand, those individuals that migrated further north and away from the tropical intensity of the sun, developed lighter skin that allowed for the formation of Vitamin D which helps to increase the fertility of women.  Hence, this is proof of evolution through natural selection. 

The article continues on saying:

The differences between light-skinned and dark-skinned people are more interesting than studying changes in the wing color of moths or, the most commonly used evolutionary example, bacterial colonies. 

First of all, we have repeatedly shown that natural selection is NOT evolution in action.  (See articles and links listed below References.)  It’s just a matter of the amount of expression of a skin pigment known as melanin within a population.  Rather than spending more time here discussing the genetics of skin color, please refer to the links below for more information on the subject.  

My greatest concern with the proposal by Dr. Jablonski is twofold. 

My first concern is that hate groups will twist any teaching of skin color being used as proof for evolution for their racist propaganda and prejudices. 

Secondly there is an inherent problem with evolutionists today in that they equate any change what-so-ever with evolution.  I have brown eyes, my wife has green eyes, one of my daughters has blue eyes and the other has grey eyes.  According to these evolutionists, that’s proof of evolution.  And if they can get you to believe that any change like this is proof of evolution, they automatically have you hooked like a fish on a line, and reeled in so that you now believe that everything is a product of evolution and that our ancestors evolved from pond scum. 

It reminds me of astronaut Neil Armstrong’s words when he stepped out of the lunar landing craft onto the surface of the moon: One small step for man.  One giant leap for mankind.   These evolutionists are trying to take one small step for microevolution to set up the giant leap to the macroevolutionary origins for all of life and continue the attack on biblical creation.

REFERENCE

Haeckel, Ernst, The History of Creation, Vol. II, D. Appleton & Co., New York, 1874. pp. 362-365.

Skin Color: Handy Tool for Teaching Evolution, Red Orbit, Feb. 20, 2011.

We’re all the same, ABC News, Sept. 10, 1998.

 

Natural Selection Articles on Creation Revolution

Evolutionists says “Natural selection must not be equated with evolution”

Natural Selection Slays Evolution!

Natural selection and change, yes; Evolution, no

Neanderthals: Random Drift, Not Natural Selection

Naturalist Rejects Natural Selection, Appeals to Chaos

Skin Color Articles on Creation.com

The genetics of skin colour in people—something fishy?

Skin deep

The origin of the human races

One Blood – Chapter 3 Genetics and the Human Race

One Blood – Chapter 4 One Race

Continue Reading on