Answers in Genesis chimes in on James Watson’s Comments

Paul Taylor from AiG wrote an article, DNA Pioneer in Evolutionary Racism Storm, addressing Dr. Watson’s ill-conceived comments.

Taylor writes,

At Answers in Genesis (both U.K. and U.S. sister offices) we profoundly disagree with Watson’s views on the origin of the so-called “races.” We concede that most evolutionists would share Rose’s non-racist views and that most evolutionists would be equally shocked by Watson. Nevertheless, it is only fair to point out that Watson is actually being more consistent with evolutionary theory than Rose. As soon as one believes that human beings have evolved from creatures of lesser intelligence, it is an easy corollary to assume that some people groups are more evolved than others. Watson repeated these views in the same newspaper (The Independent) on October 19, 2007, while protesting that this was not a comment on the “inferiority or superiority” of any people group. Yet we contend that a comment on the supposed intelligence levels of different people groups is clearly a value judgment.(emphasis mine)

Is Taylor right in saying that Watson is “actually being more consistent with evolutionary theory” than evolutionists who correctly denounce Watson’s comments?

I like Taylor’s closing sentence,

Contrary to the belief of evolutionists, there is actually only one race—Adam’s race. And Adam’s race includes “black” people, “white” people—all human beings everywhere.

Advertisements

5 Responses to Answers in Genesis chimes in on James Watson’s Comments

  1. Jon says:

    Contrary to the belief of evolutionists, there is actually only one race—Adam’s race. And Adam’s race includes “black” people, “white” people—all human beings everywhere.

    “Race” isn’t really a biological term, so no, “evolutionists” don’t distinguish between “races”. In fact, a black American and a white American are more genetically similar then a black American and a black African.

    Here’s an article that talks a bit about race and genes.

    Is Taylor right in saying that Watson is “actually being more consistent with evolutionary theory” than evolutionists who correctly denounce Watson’s comments?

    Evolutionary theory does not predict that dumber species necessarily evolve into smarter ones, or that less complex species necessarily evolve into more complex species. In fact, we know of numerous examples where a very complex species of organism evolved into a rather less complex one. That’s because with complexity comes a cost. For example, our big human brains metabolize energy at a rate of about 7.5 times that of the rest of our bodies. If at some point in the future we can no longer sustain such a requirement, we’ll likely evolve smaller, less consumptive brains.

  2. Laz says:

    Jon, how would you define “complexity”?

  3. Gene says:

    Question? How can black people be members of “Adam’s Race” when Adam means ruddy or showing blood in the face?

    And how can Noah be the father of three distinctly different races when he only had one wife?

    Ah, questions and anomolies, questions and anomolies.

  4. Laz says:

    Gene,
    Adam means “man”, Edom means “ruddy”. I understand that in Torah Hebrew (no vowels) they look the same but the scribes who added the vowels understood that the words were not the same.

    No one can possibly have a definitive answer on your Noah question (unless they have a souped up DeLorean), but something to keep in mind is whether or not his sons could be spoken of as being of 3 different “races”.

  5. Seth says:

    Actually, the three different “races” probably all showed up AFTER Noah. First, it was not until after Babel (several hundred years after the flood) that people began to separate into smaller groups, so before then they all intermarried. If people intermarry, then specific “racial” traits won’t show up, especially in a smaller population.

    Another thought is that Noah’s wife and his sons’ wives could have been of another “race,” thus supplying the genetic material for the variety. That may explain why several of Ham’s children became the fathers of several African people groups, all with dark skin.

    What intrigues me the most is considering the other few million or billion people that died in the flood. How might they have looked?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: