Search This Blog

Saturday, November 19, 2011

When Darwinism falls, will racism go with it?

Many evils have been foisted on humankind by those who adhere to the worldview I like to call "Darwinism."   One of the most heinous is of course the attempt to use so-called science to eliminate God from society.   Dawkin's famous quote in which he gives Darwinism credit for allowing him to be an "intellectually satisfied atheist" is one of many such statements made by Darwinists.  It appears that trying to keep God out of the culture is proving to be culture. 

Certainly another Darwinist evil is the existence of racism.  Because Darwinism teaches that non-white races are less evolved than the white race, it was considered "just science" when aborigines were hunted down, killed and skinned and prepared to be displayed in museums as if they were wild game.  Darwinism didn't invent racism of course and it didn't invent atheism, either.   But both atheism and racism are supported by the Darwinist worldview, so as long as people keep believing the stories, they are also far more likely to be racists and also more likely to be agnostic about God, if not entirely unbelieving.

The Bible, on the other hand, does not teach racism at all and in fact Creationists will assert that the concept of "race" is not valid.   Mankind is mankind with differences in skin color, hair color, eye color and various body types and sizes simply part of God's plan.   We all have unique fingerprints and personalities and talents but we are all people with no superior race among us, period!

Like Sly Stone of the Family Stone said on the Ed Sullivan Show back when I was in high school:

"Don't hate the black,
Don't hate the white, 
If you get bitten,
Hate the bite!"

The Bible and interracial marriage

The Bible and interracial marriage
Fabric textures by: © © © 

Even though the Bible makes it clear that all people are descended from Adam and Eve (so they must be very closely related),1 there are still misconceptions among some Christians surrounding ‘race’. Surprisingly, perhaps, this can include concerns about the idea of marriage between two believers from different so-called races.

But these concerns have no basis in either science or the Bible. Science has finally caught up with God’s Word in affirming how very closely related we all are at the genetic level. Evolutionary thinking has, historically, exacerbated racism dramatically. Darwin believed that some groups were less evolved toward humanity than others—with his own group, unsurprisingly, the most evolved. Darwin’s ally in Germany, Haeckel, even attacked the Bible for its antiracism.2

Evolutionary thinking has, historically, exacerbated racism dramatically.

It’s not as if we can solve all society’s problems with race by simply decreeing, on the basis of our close relatedness, that there is no such thing as race. If that were so, then there would be no such thing as racism, or discrimination by race. Nor would there even be the question of ‘interracial marriage’. In short, the word ‘race’ still conveys everyday meaning; we recognize that some are more closely related to us (and hence look more similar to us) than others.

But what ‘group differences’ exist are trivial, as modern discoveries in human biology and genetics now confirm. Things such as skin, hair or eye colour involve no structures or functions unique to any group, just various amounts of the same stuff. All people have the same ‘sunscreen’ skin pigment melanin; those with more melanin, generally labelled ‘black’, are really more dark-brown. Those with less, called ‘white’, are really light brown—often pinkish, because of insufficient melanin to screen the redness of their small blood vessels. And there are many shades in between.

One human family

The Bible, science, race & culture

Unlike any other creation book you have ever read
One human family
A blow-by-blow tour of race-related issues across the world, with amazingly apt anecdotes and analogies revealing a wealth of research and life experience all in one volume. Combines sensitivity with a rejection of ‘political correctness’. For many, this immensely readable work will make ‘the lights go on’—not just about race but the whole biblical ‘big picture’ of human history.

Dr Jerry Bergman wrote: “In short, it is superb!”
For more reviews and to read sample sections go to OneHumanFamily.ME or OneHumanFamily.US.
People with blue eyes have no unique colouring chemical; it’s that same stuff, melanin. It’s simply the way the light scatters from a lesser amount of melanin (just as the sky is blue because of the scattering of light from air molecules, enhanced by fine dust particles). Similarly, those genetically programmed to produce a lot of melanin in their hair will have brown or ‘black’ hair. And those with a little bit have blond hair.

Incidentally, it’s easy to explain how groups of people with differing characteristics distributed variously across the world could have arisen very rapidly. The Bible describes an event at Babel that provides the right conditions—the breakup of a population into a few dozen smaller ones that became isolated from each other.

The world’s population, having recently emerged from a ‘near-extinction event’,3 all spoke the same language. A small number of new languages (which form the ‘roots’ of today’s language family ‘trees’) was suddenly and supernaturally imposed upon this group.4

The resultant confusion and likely hostilities meant that each group rapidly fulfilled God’s stated purpose for this event, namely to spread people over all the earth. In effect, the event imposed a virtually instant social and then geographic (hence reproductive) isolation from each other. Each group carried a different subset of the total ‘gene pool’. Chapter 18 of The Creation Answers Book explains in detail how this would have led to the sorts of genetic groupings (including visible traits) we see in human populations today. Thus, racial differences, though not the purpose of this Babel event, were a side-effect.

Desperate attempts have been made to use this and other portions of the Bible to justify the status quo in societies with slavery and/or segregation. However, following that fairly drastic initial divine ‘nudge’, humanity has long ago amply observed God’s command to fill the earth. There is no suggestion in Scripture that God forbids either migration from one place to another, or marriage between one ethnic group and another.5

The Bible does counsel believers not to marry unbelievers (2 Corinthians 6:14). And in Old Testament times, the Israelites were not to marry outsiders. But they were allowed to if the outsiders converted to faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—such as occurred for Rahab and Ruth, ancestors of Jesus (Matthew 1). This shows that the issue was religious, not racial or even cultural.

Culture matters

Common sense indicates that groups that have a longer history of isolation from each other, both geographically and linguistically, will have developed greater differences in their respective cultures. Interracial marriage will therefore often mean that one is marrying someone from a different culture. So, there are ‘wisdom issues’ to consider. Cultural differences can arise even when two people are of the same ‘race’, e.g. a typical English person marrying a typical Russian. Even those speaking the same language, such as Americans and Australians,6 are often surprised at how great the cultural differences can be.

Cultural differences can greatly enrich both persons’ lives, but they can also bring a unique set of problems. Couples wise enough to seek counselling7 on various matters prior to betrothal should consider such things, too. It helps to be able to anticipate the sorts of problems that may arise, and bring the issues out into the open. The intention is to try to minimize problems should the marriage proceed.

Dogs and the dogma of ‘racial purity’

One of the issues in the way people see interracial marriage has, I think, to do with misconceptions about the idea of a so-called ‘pure race’. I recall listening once to a talk by CMI colleague, Peter Sparrow. With his trademark wide grin and booming voice, Peter made a statement which even startled me (it certainly seemed to shock many in the audience). He said (emphasis his): “Adam and Eve were the ultimate mongrels!”

When you think about it, he was absolutely right. The problem is that we have been conditioned to think of genetically depleted populations as ‘pure’ in the sense of somehow ‘better’. In fact, it is the ‘mongrel’ combinations in both animals and humans that have the greater genetic richness, more like the originals that God created directly.

When we start with the real history of mankind given in God’s Word, we see why there are no biblical or biological barriers to interracial marriage.

A good illustration of this involves domestic dog breeds. Starting from a ‘mongrel’ dog population, breeders have been able to select out many different ‘pure’ breeds—varieties as different as, say, Great Danes are from Chihuahuas. But by isolating certain characteristics, breeders have had to ignore others. Thus, by breeding for ‘Chihuahua-ness’ (including ‘tininess’), some of the genes for ‘Great-Dane-ness’ (such as ‘hugeness’) were lost in the process—and vice versa. So, if all dogs in the world ceased to exist apart from Chihuahuas, one could never breed something like a Great Dane again. To ‘rebreed’ a Great Dane, one would need the genetic richness and variety in that original mongrel population.8

So the ‘pure’ breeds are in fact thinned out and genetically depleted populations. They are more specialized, but also less able to vary and adapt further by selection. Similarly in human populations; Adam and Eve could not have been, as they are often depicted, pale-skinned with blue eyes and blond hair, or they could not have given rise to all of the different varieties of humans. They would likely have been ‘middle of the road’ in most characteristics, thus providing for the great range of variety observed in their offspring.

Two tone twins

In such things as skin shade, hair and eye colouring, they were likely a medium brown. The descendants of people who have such a rich genetic endowment can then express a great range of variation as these genes recombine. Their skin shading can range from ‘white’ to ‘black’ and every shade in between.

This is beautifully illustrated in the ‘two-tone twins’ example (above) favoured by CMI speakers. The two beautiful twin9 baby girls shown were able to express that amazing level of variety in one generation because their mother and father (pictured) are themselves the product of ‘mixed’ marriages. In short, when two people from different races intermarry, they gain a greater richness and variety in their genes, closer to the original.

How sad that so many, inspired by evolution, or by others who have been, have put so much fanatical passion into preserving their particular ‘pure race’. Many have killed, and even willingly died, for this ‘cause’. Once one sees it for what it is—one’s genetically depleted race—it doesn’t sound like a cause worth wasting any breath on, let alone dying for.

The bottom line

When we start with the real history of mankind given in God’s Word, we see why there are no biblical or biological barriers to interracial marriage. In fact, there are positive aspects to it. Since the spouses in such a marriage are generally going to be less closely related than two of the same ethnic group, they are likely introducing greater genetic variety into their offspring.10

Related articles

Further reading

References and notes

  1. See for example Luke 3:23–38, Acts 17:26, 1 Corinthians 15:45. Return to text.
  2. E. van Niekerk, Ernst Haeckel: a hostile witness to the truth of the Bible,, 3 March 2011. Return to text.
  3. The Flood of Noah—8 people only survived. Return to text.
  4. Genesis Chapters 10 and 11. The distribution of these new languages seems to have been along extended family lines. See also Wieland, C., Towering change: Were all of today’s thousands of languages separately created? And if not, have languages evolved? Creation 22(1):22–26, 1999; Return to text.
  5. This is expounded and argued in detail in my book One Human Family: The Bible, science, race and culture. Return to text.
  6. Well, sort of the same language.SmiliesReturn to text.
  7. E.g. from an experienced pastor with the appropriate level of godly common sense. Return to text.
  8. ‘Pure’ lines in the world of show-breeding are, incidentally, also much more likely to suffer from the effects of accumulated mutational defects because of inbreeding. See Cosner, L., A parade of mutants pedigree dogs and artificial selection, Creation 32(3):28–32, 2010; Return to text.
  9. Heterozygous or non-identical twins, clearly. Return to text.

I pre-ordered my copy of One Human Family as soon as it was announced.   I didn't need any convincing that people are just people but I was quite sure the book will be a rich source of information concerning recent findings specifically concerning the genetic code of mankind.  Christians absolutely should understand that racism is wrong.   Christians spearheaded both the elimination of the slave trade and the abolition of slavery.   Any Christian who believes the Bible teaches racism is grievously wrong.   Darwinism, of course, absolutely proclaims that racism is the natural outgrowth of living in a world with "less-evolved" people who are, to the most dedicated by-the-book Darwinists actually subhuman!  

Jesus was not white, he was a Jew so he undoubtedly had a Semitic appearance with probably olive tinted skin, dark curly hair and a somewhat bigger than average nose.  Wouldn't God have chosen to come to Earth as a Caucasian if they were superior people?  White people are descended from the line of Japheth, but so are Orientals.   Racial stereotypes can get comical at times.  I've known African American guys who are terrible basketball players, Asians who are not skinny,  Native Americans without drinking problems,  people of Scottish descent who are not misers and Polish people who are exceedingly smart.  People are people, we did not evolve from any other kind of creature and we are not going to turn into anything else while under our Sun.   

Like the Laws of Thermodynamics demand, organisms are accumulating mutations and will begin having more problems and diseases that threaten their existence.   Will modern science wake up and realize that organisms are designed and that mutations are not creative, they are deleterious? 

For now, just keep in mind that Darwinism isn't just the enemy of people of color, but the poor and the needy and those battling diseases - the less fortunate, those with less money.   To give Cornelius Hunter the soapbox:

What Michele Bachmann and Charles Darwin (Don’t) Have in Common

In a recent political debate presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann raised the topic of vaccines. She accused Rick Perry, governor of Texas, of abusing his authority when he imposed vaccine mandates. What does this have to do with Charles Darwin? Darwin was also concerned about vaccines. But the so-called Father of Modern Biology had a different sort of concern. Darwin erroneously worried that vaccines preserved the lives of those who otherwise would have succumbed. “Thus,” warned the Sage of Kent, “the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind.” And that, he ominously concluded:

"...must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage."

It is little wonder that fifteen years later Nietzsche proclaimed that “The invalids are the great danger to humanity, not the evil men.” The rest, as they say, is history. Let’s hope it stays that way.

Religion drives science, and it matters.


Well, it should be no surprise that Darwin's cousin Francis Galton was the progenitor of the Eugenics movement and the concept swept across the sea to the USA, where a shameful story of forced sterilizations will never go away.  Do some research for yourself once you drag yourself away from the propaganda machines and think about what Darwinism has done for humanity.   Separated more people from God?  Yup.  Given tacit approval to immoral activities?  Yup.   Used as an excuse to murder tens of millions?  Yup again.  Taken lots of time and money away from real research?  Alas, yup.  The ship of science doesn't move well or in the right direction with the massive Darwinist anchor being dragged behind. 


Anonymous said...

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Anonymous whatsit said...

If Radar were capable of shame, this blog wouldn't exist.

Scohen said...

"Jesus was not white, he was a Jew so he undoubtedly had a Semitic appearance with probably olive tinted skin, dark curly hair and a somewhat bigger than average nose."

You stay classy radar!

Jon Woolf said...

The Bible, on the other hand, does not teach racism at all and in fact Creationists will assert that the concept of "race" is not valid.


Curse of Ham, anyone?

Meanwhile, a recent biography of Darwin argues that his hatred of slavery and racism was a prime mover in his ideas on human evolution.

Anonymous said...

I'm not really commenting much these days, but still reading this drivel. This was just one big logic fail. Perhaps the most ridiculous quote:

Because Darwinism teaches that non-white races are less evolved than the white race, it was considered "just science" when aborigines were hunted down, killed and skinned and prepared to be displayed in museums as if they were wild game.

Darwinism (which I'm still not sure them meaning of this term) teaches this? I believe that when you say Darwinism, you mean the current scientific paradigm involving evolution and one that contradicts the genesis version of creation...please correct me if I'm wrong. I would love to see some current science (something that is accepted by most of the people you would consider a darwinist today) that gives the viewpoint I quoted above.

Radar, I know we've been over the point that when something good (or morally neutral) is perverted and used to do bad things, that doesn't necessarily make the original thing evil. Take Christianity and the Bible, they have been used to justify some horrible things. But you won't...the blinders are on a little tight...


loboinok said...

"You should be ashamed of yourself."
Why? Pray tell.

"Jesus was not white (fact), he was a Jew(fact) so he undoubtedly had a Semitic appearance(fact) with probably olive tinted skin(fact), dark curly hair and a somewhat bigger than average nose(fact)."

"You stay classy radar!"
You stay classy? Are you serious, Scohen?

"Jon Woolf said...
The Bible, on the other hand, does not teach racism at all and in fact Creationists will assert that the concept of "race" is not valid.


Curse of Ham, anyone?

Meanwhile, a recent biography of Darwin argues...

"I'm not really commenting much these days, but still reading this drivel..."
Not 'commenting' I can understand but 'still reading this drivel' leads me to ask... why?

scohen said...

What's not classy about thinking that Jesus had a big nose because he was Jewish?

He was probably cheap too.

AmericanVet said...

Apparently this one hit Darwinists where it hurts. Yes, Darwinism has been an official excuse for atheism and racism and for many it still is. So no, YOU should be ashamed of yourselves! You who defend monstrous concepts like Darwinism and Eugenics and seek to cast God and morality from society, who defend a worldview that has been an excuse for the slaughter of tens of milliosn by men like Hitler and Stalin and Mao. You should be ashamed!

Usually moviemakers make Jesus look like Eric Clapton. He was Jewish and so were the disciples who became apostles. In fact the first Christians were almost all Jews, since Christ was the Messiah, the fulfillment of the prophecies. So the new covenant replaced the old, the old Jewish religion of sacrifices and Temple and etc. was finished. This is why the temple veil ripped from the top down when Christ was crucified and why the Temple was destroyed (as Jesus predicted) and Jerusalem destroyed (As predicted by Daniel and Jesus and others) in AD 70. The point is that anyone, including a Christian, who thinks whites are superior had better think about Jesus, who was probably halfway between white and black in coloring.

So schohen, what is your problem? Are you mad that Jesus was a Jew?

Yes, Darwinists, Charles Darwin was a racist and his cousin started the Eugenics movement and Hitler used quotes from Darwin to make a movie depicting the non-Aryans as subhumans needing to be eliminated. The American Eugenics Society neatly morphed into Planned Parenthood and stations most clinics near the poor and minority populations of cities.

scohen said...

So you think the reason that Jesus might have had Semitic features is because he was Jewish?

Is it alright to assume that Jews have big noses?

AmericanVet said...

Look, schohen, Hollywood likes to portray Jesus as white, often with blue eyes and very long hair. Jesus was Semitic, we know that, and that means Jesus looked like a Semitic Jew. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely he had long, flowing hair. John the Baptist was a Nazirite, which means he had taken a vow that included not cutting his hair or beard or touching dead animals or drinking wine. Jesus was not a Nazirite so he llkely had the normal hairstyle of the time period which was relatively short.

What I want to know is why you are offended by the idea that Jesus was a Jew and therefore probably looked Semitic? Are you implying it is wrong to look Semitic? Just exactly what are you concerned about? I am saying Jesus probably looked like a Semitic Jew of the First Century AD. Not like George Harrison or Eric Clapton.

The idea is to make racists realize that, if they actually call themselvs Christians, they had better realize the first Christians were NOT WHITE and be thankful that God wanted the Christian faith to encompass all peoples and not just Jews. Also those who like to say "Jews crucified Jesus" need to realize what actually happened. The ruling paradigm of Rome and Pharisees and Sadducees who got their power and position at the discretion of Rome crucified Christ because they considered Him a threat to their place in life.

So maybe Jews greatly encouraged Romans to crucify Christ, but Christ was a Jew and so were His followers. Christianity is just traditional Judaism under a new covenant. Jews could allow gentiles into the faith on a case-by-case basis previously. Now Chrisianity is open to all. Orthodox Judaism ended - no Temple, no sacrifices, no holy of holies, no presence of God behind the veil. Christianity is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. So I am not in any way anti-Jew, my Savior is a Jew and the New Testament was written almost entirely by Jews.

Anonymous said...

But Radar, it's painfully obvious to all that you don't know the first thing about the modern theory of evolution or "darwinism" as you like to call it (although being a christian litteralist, you're probably pretty familiar with the whole racism angle - slavery anyone?). Really though, why would anyone listen to you? Even most other christians think your worldview is nuts and would turn up their noses at the garbage article above. It's pretty cute that you think you are some kind of authority though.

And Lobi, are you really asking why Radar should be ashamed of himself, I mean it's pretty clear... ~checks blogger account~...

... Nevermind, you wouldn't get it.

And no Radar, you haven't "hit Darwinists where it hurts", the reactions you're seeing are those of your regular readers simply remarking at how you've apparently "hit a new low". Nothing to be proud of, really.


Anonymous said...

Oh and Radar, can you tell me, has the bible ever been used as justification for killing? Just curious to see how that cognitive dissonance is working for you.


AmericanVet said...

Canucklehead, you are a bigot. Bigoted against Christians for sure and if you are not aware that Christians spearheaded the end of the slave trade and slavery then you do not know much about history.

I bet you I know more about evolution than you do. I have taken more classes, done more field work, found more fossils, traveled farther afield in more areas than you. The modern theory of evolution is not a theory, it cannot be tested fully and it fails what tests can be made. I substitutes the miraculous creation of the Universe and all within it by God for a miraculous creation of the Universe and all within it by total random chance. Ignorant and illogical.

What makes you mad is that I shine light on the areas where Darwinism is lacking. Which is pretty much everywhere, which is why I never run out of material to use.

Also, I will thank you to get your own moral code and leave mine alone. As a Christian I have a moral code based on Scripture. Since you mock Scripture and deny God you have no basis for deciding right or wrong except in your own mind. Not much authority there.

Anonymous said...

Just in case you're stumped.


Anonymous said...

This just in: Homophobic Internet Bigot and christian extremist accuses somebody else of being a bigot. LOL.

Actually, while it may be true that SOME christians faught against slavery, others fought for it using the bible as justification.

Tell me, does that bible of yours actually condemn slavery Radar?

If you "know evolution more than I do", then why do you constantly get it so wrong? It's even pointed out to you all the time. Regularly publishing infantile mis-characterizations and flat out fallacies does not mean that you "know evolution" in any way. I mean it's pretty clear that even you don't read some of the articles you post (with the human population post being just the most recent example of this).


Anonymous said...

And thanks for noting that without the bible you wouldn't know the difference between right and wrong. You sociopath you. All this "lying for jesus" makes so much more sense now. LOL.

Fortunately, I don't have the same handicap. Oh and if what you said were actually true, you'd see this play out in our prison systems. Unfortunately for you, the jails across North America are packed with christians, and atheists are underrepresented.


scohen said...

First off, I'm not offended, I'm sad.

The reason is simple, and it's not because Jesus was Jewish. I'm saddened by the fact that you attributed certain facial features to him because he was Jewish.

Hint: Semitic doesn't mean Jewish.

AmericanVet said...

scohen, if we were talking about a 20th Century person, then it would be stereotypical of me to attribute certain facial features to Jesus because He was a Jew. But we are talking 2,000 years ago. Semitic - comes from the name Shem. Ham, Shem and Japheth were the three sons of Noah who stepped off the Ark some 4300 years ago. Jesus was a descendent of Shem, making Him Semitic. Furthermore He had both father and mother sides genealogies in place to prove it. Someone in 1st Century Israel who was eligible to be a Rabbi (as Jesus was) had to prove lineage as kept in the Temple records. The Scripture says there was nothing unusual about His appearance, so He was not unusually tall like King Saul. So in other words He would look like a 1st Century Semitic Jew, which means brown eyes, olive skin, dark brown-to-black hair and a more prominent nose. In fact, if you believe that the Shroud of Turin is actually a burial cloth of Christ, that face is one that would typify a 1st Century Semitic Jew.

Over the centuries with the dispersion of the Jewish peoples far and wide, including large populations in Eastern Europe, it is not any longer true that a Jewish person will look like a 1st Century Semitic Jew. So if you know your history you should understand that I describe Christ the way I do because evidence indicates that is what He looked like.

I would not expect a Jew to have a prominent nose or dark hair in the 20th Century because the Jewish peoples have included lots of former gentiles into their families and so a Jew can be a blue eyed blonde. The fact is that I do not care. The reason I even mention it is because there are some Christians (who should know better) that are prejudiced against Jews despite the fact that Jesus was a Jew!!!

Pamela Gellar, the writer of Atlas Shrugged, once sent me an email calling me a "mensch." Angel, another blogger who is a Jew, is a blogging buddy. Have you ever seen a picture of Pam? She is gorgeous but she certainly doesn't have a prominent nose.

Yeah, I know all the stereotypes, Jews are cheap, have big noses, a bunch of them run the world, they will screw you over in business, yadda yadda yadda. That you think I fall into that group means either you really aren't thinking at all or you just want an excuse to complain.

In this world, there are reasons to do things and excuses to do things. Darwinism has given a lot of tyrants an excuse to slaughter innocents and both under Stalin and Hitler Jews took it on the chin. Part one.

AmericanVet said...

European Jews well know the idea of the ghetto and pogroms. One of my favorite musicals is Fiddler on the Roof. It illustrates the fact that Jews in Europe were uniformly and unfairly hated by non-Jews. Darwinism didn't start that, it just gave the tyrants an excuse to do it and a means to publish propaganda defending their actions.

I have read a lot of Herman Wouk. I think my favorite is The City Boy. But another great work is Marjorie Morningstar. I got a feel for the sense of inevitability many Jews of a previous generation felt about being cheated and looked down upon, as if it were a part of daily living. It is true that there are still large numbers of people who are prejudiced against Jews. I am not one of them.

Actually, you are the one who should be ashamed of yourself, if anything. I asked you not to contact my friend and student Kevin directly but you did anyway. He alerted me right away. I didn't want him bothered by a Darwinist until he graduated from Rose. You thought you were being sneaky. Kevin asked me about the whole thing and I said, if you want to talk to him, great, you can write a guest post about it when it is over. Did you really think Kevin wouldn't tell me right away some guy was contacting him? At the time he was not yet 21 years old and frankly contacting him was in my opinion dishonest. So take your ashamed onto yourself!

scohen said...

You're missing the point entirely.
Semitic people include some Jews, but all Jews aren't semitic, nor are all semites Jews.

Your statement, which was made today implies that Jesus would have looked a certain way because he was Jewish, when in fact he looked that way because he was semitic (though you've obviously stereotyped there as well). Saying someone looks a certain way because they're Jewish isn't particularly groovy --either now or 2000 years ago.

You'd have been better off saying that most representations of Jesus aren't correct, given where he was born, but the fact is we don't know what he looked like.

Still, I'd like for you to show me where biology defines the concept of race --and please, use something recent. I was under the impression that there is no biological definition of race.

AmericanVet said...

Back and fill, scohen. I do not believe in race and therefore I do not think you can support it biologically. There are only variations within the human kind. These variations include height and skin and hair and eyes and body types like ectomorphs and mesomorphs which are all descriptive. But Jesus was a son of Shem and his genealogy was firm. Therefore he looked like a typical 1st Century Jewish citizen of Israel, which means that in order not to stand out he would have probably had olive skin, dark hair and eyes and a more prominent nose than found on the typical Swede. What is the big deal here? I am saying he didn't look like the Englishman-type so often portrayed in art both ancient and modern. The idea is that people who think that the white race is superior but think they are Christians need to revise their thinking. Why that bothers you I do not know but I am not wasting any more time on it. You have a problem, not me. I don't believe in races or racism and I am going to be publishing some articles to prove that point.

scohen said...

You know what would be awesome? If you admitted your gaffe and corrected your statement to something along the lines of:

Being semitic, Jesus probably didn't look like the white, blonde european so often seen in paintings.

That's not so hard, is it?

"Why that bothers you I do not know "

It bothers me because you're saying that Jews look a certain way. That's just not true. I don't think I can be more plain than that.

""Back and fill, scohen. I do not believe in race and therefore I do not think you can support it biologically"

What do you mean by "back and fill"?

My point here is that race is meaningless to biology/evolution, which you claimed above. If you could show me where recent scientists have defined what a race is, or used it in an evolutionary context, then that'd be swell. Otherwise, you're basically agreeing with all that I've learned from (evolution-centric) biology.

AmericanVet said...

Well, scohen, you are the guy who blasted me about Hartnett's equation and, when it turned out that the math was RIGHT as confirmed by two engineers you never did apologize for all the name-calling you did back then. You were wrong. Remember?

I am also right about the probable appearance of Jesus, which is taken from scripture. The Bible states the following: "Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,[b]and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors."

The New Testament does not describe the appearance of Christ, nor does Josephus. The ordinary Jew in the area was a brown skinned, dark haired, brown eyed person with a somewhat larger nose and in those days relatively short hair (Unless he was a Nazirite). We know Jesus was NOT a Nazirite because He drank wine.

I am giving people history, you are whining. Get over yourself, scohen. If Jesus had decided to come to Northern Europe he would have been a blonde with blue eyes probably. Had He chosen to be born in the Orient He would have had that eye fold that makes the eye look a bit slanted and he would have had more of a yellowish tinge to the skin. He of course was to come to the Children of Israel first and be born to their stock. End of story.

AmericanVet said...

Oh, and I would like to know what is wrong with having olive tinted skin, dark curly hair, and a somewhat bigger than average nose? Is there something shameful about that? If you look like that is it a negative? Are you commenters suggesting that people who are not white are lesser somehow? Do you avoid people who look like that? Just exactly where is your head at when you complain about the likely appearance of Christ?

To get technical, Jesus was of the lineage officially of David, which means four of his ancestors according to scripture would be described today as "black" of the many generations of his lineage. A Forensic artist named Richard Neave made a hypothetical reconstruction of the probable approximate appearance of Christ which seems right according to the scriptures.

I never ask any commenters about their appearance. I don't care. If you are offended that Jesus was not likely a guy who looked like George Harrison then you are taking offense but I have not given it. Because there is nothing wrong in looking like a first century son of David in the area of Jerusalem. If you think there is something wrong, then you should check yourself for racist tendencies. Perhaps you should be ashamed of yourself?

Jesus Christ is my Savior. I know the scriptures very well, I know what they say, I know the history of the Children of Israel and have resources like Josephus and Ussher at my fingertips. If you don't like the idea of a non-white Christ, too bad. You are prejudiced, apparently, and consider the idea insulting. Well, consider yourself and how you think. This entire comments thread makes me think that you anti-God commenters are also somewhat racist, which is not surprising I guess.

So I will just ask you this question. Does a non-white Jesus diminish His claim to be the Messiah? If you actually know just the Old Testament scriptures, you would say quite the opposite. So I say as well. Jesus was a son of Adam, a son of Shem, as son of Abraham and a son of Israel and certainly a son of David as well as The Son of God.

scohen said...

"was RIGHT as confirmed by two engineers you never did apologize"

Whatever radar. I'm right by my own knowledge, two physicists and two mathemeticians. Do you want me to get Ed Witten on board? You prevented dialogue with Kevin that would have let me explain myself to him without your filter in the way. You clearly don't understand my argument there --much like you don't understand my argument here.

But this isn't about me, is it? No, it's about you.

"The New Testament does not describe the appearance of Christ, nor does Josephus."

So you have no business speculating.

"The ordinary Jew in the area was a brown skinned, dark haired, brown eyed person"

The characterization you gave about pertains to semites, not just Jews.

"Get over yourself, scohen"

Your response is noted. When a minority tells you something you said is wrong, your response is to argue with them rather than to try to understand why and correct yourself.

That's privilege, Radar. The correction is simple as I posted above: Being semitic, Jesus probably didn't look like the white, blonde european so often seen in paintings.

"Oh, and I would like to know what is wrong with having olive tinted skin"

There's nothing wrong with it, what's wrong is when you attribute those characteristics to Jews, when they're semitic characteristics (and not even universal). The truth of the matter is that is useless to speculate about what Jesus looked like.

"if you are offended that Jesus was not likely a guy who looked like George Harrison"

Can you not write five paragraphs without misrepresenting an argument? Why on earth would I care what Jesus looked like? I suggest you re-read what I've previously written and reconsider your statement.

"If you actually know just the Old Testament scriptures, you would say quite the opposite."

No, events on the ground preclude that (no peace means no messianic age). But hey, you probably know the OT more than pretty much every rabbi in history so I'm obviously wrong there too.

After all, you know hebrew pretty well:

scohen said...

Oh, and if you could point to a biological definition of race, that would be swell.

Your whole argument hinges on it.

AmericanVet said...

My argument is not about race, since I do not believe in races. In fact this is really about you, who were wrong about Harnett, wrong about GAs and now you are wrong about this argument as well. You are just pretty consistently wrong. You think random chance made everything, for instance, which is an incoherent thing to believe in. This argument of yours about the appearance of Christ is stupid anyway, since you do not believe in Him and won't until you die. So what is it to you what Jesus looked like then? Better that you work on knowing WHO He is instead. He is the Messiah. You need a Messiah. Why not major in the majors and not the minors?

As far as Hebrew goes, I quoted Hebrew scholars on the meaning of yom and didn't just use myself. I need my interlinear and reference tools to read Hebrew and Greek and do not mind admitting to it. I paid a pretty penny for some of my Bible tools and my library of books and DVD and etc. I will get use out of them.

Quit pretending about Kevin, he told me you contacted him way back when you first found him, like a stalker, and produced a flurry of emails. You think Kevin wouldn't ask me about interacting with you? Kevin is smarter than you OR me and he also is likely better at math. My other source is an engineer, a captain in the AR and a city planner as well. They know their stuff. You berated me about that Hartnett stuff and when it turned out you were wrong, you would not admit it.

So YOU stay classy...

scohen said...

Wow radar,
So much anger and so little knowledge. I don't know where to start other than to say you just don't know anything about GA, so you aren't capable of making any pronouncements on that topic.

"So what is it to you what Jesus looked like then"

Honestly I don't care what he looked like, but I do care when you say he looked a certain way because he was Jewish rather than because everyone in that area looked like that. But rather than try to understand my complaint, you'd rather feebly try to paint me as some kind of racist.

"You are just pretty consistently wrong."

Yep, as is Jon Wolf, Creeper, Dan S., Lava, IAMB, Anonymous Whatsit, Hot Lips Houlihan, and pretty much everyone else. Oh, and all of mainstream science. You're the one who is right. And you tell me to get over myself.

"I quoted Hebrew scholars on the meaning of yom"

The comment I linked to didn't talk about the word "yom", it pointed out your error about the word yaweh. I know I'm probably wrong about that too, despite seeing that word about twenty times per page in the Torah and being able to read hebrew and everything.

"You need a Messiah. Why not major in the majors and not the minors?"

What's it called when you insinuate that someone else's religion is inferior to yours? I'll remember that line every time you write something about "judeo-christian values".

"like a stalker"
That's quite an accusation. I emailed him and he responded about five times before he left for Microsoft. I had a bad accident this summer and didn't keep up on my end either. If I was a stalker, why would he respond even once?

Remember when you said he was an expert in GAs? Well, he disagrees. What he is is a bright young coder with a great future ahead of him, and as you can see there was no reason to stand in my way. In fact, being an impediment didn't work, did it? And where was I pretending about Kevin? I chastised you for standing in the way, which you certainly did, and I contacted him entirely on my own without any help from you.

"Kevin is smarter than you OR me and he also is likely better at math"

I have no problem admitting that someone is smarter than I am. Hell, I love to *hire* people smarter than me. I should also hope he's better at math than I am, being in college and all, but I already know the answer to Hartnett's equation, so why would additional expertise make any difference?

Ed Witten isn't required to tell me that 2+1=3. Similarly, the integral of a constant c from 0 to x is the same as x * c. I can show my work if you want.

All this is trivia though and a distraction from the main issue here where you implied that Jesus looked a certain way *because he was Jewish* and not because everyone in the area looked that way. Digging up old dirt doesn't do anything to address that issue.

You said before that you valued it when someone admits error. Here's your chance.

scohen said...

"My argument is not about race, since I do not believe in races."

Neither do I and neither does biology. Unless you'd like to show me how I'm wrong about that too.

Anonymous said...

@ scohen,

"Yep, as is Jon Wolf, Creeper, Dan S., Lava, IAMB, Anonymous Whatsit, Hot Lips Houlihan, and pretty much everyone else."

Ouch. I guess I know how Mary Ann and the Professor felt.


AmericanVet said...

Well, schohen thinks that he can ignore history and evidence. Any son of David with the genealogy of Jesus clearly spelled out in scriptures would have dark skin and hair and eyes because of his heritage as a son of Shem and Israel and David, etc. Whether Jesus was a Jew or not, his appearance would be generalized because of his heritage. Schohen just wants to get all upset because he thinks I am saying a Jew has to have such an appearance, which I am not, I am saying Jesus would have had that appearance.

Also I have had conversations with Kevin about GA (sorry you were ill for awhile) and he and I both think it strange that you cannot understand that GA required programming and hardware and software in order to run. Therefore GA has nothing in common with Darwinism unless it can make its own computer, hardware, BIOS, software and program before it begins to operate. But then that is the problem with Darwinism, that it requires multitudes of miracles to even get to the point where it would have a chance to work and we never see it successfully operate in real time.