ME:  thank you for this opportunity to sit down and talk together.

l:  no problem.  You are my favorite interviewer!

ME:  so what's been on your mind recently?

I:  I was reading an article the other day about a KKK rally in California.  I was saddened by the whole thing, of course, but the worst part to me was that the counterprotesters were guilty of more violence than the Klan themselves.  But that wasn't the thing that really got me thinking.  I scrolled down to read the comments people were posting.

ME:  you don't often read those, right?

I:  no, I don't, but I must have had time to kill.  

ME:  what did you find there.

I:  the comment that caught my eye started with "Blacks are stupid."  It turned out to be a very long comment, more like a blog.  But instead of it being a hate filled rant, it was disguised as "research".

ME:  Really?

I:  I'm not saying it WAS research, but the writer was trying hard to sound intellectual.  

ME:  what do you mean?

I: the "research" included IQ scores and and the GNP of various nations.  The writer tried to make the case that, since Asians as a group score highest on IQ tests, and African countries tend to have the poorest economies, Asians are the smartest race, followed by caucasians then blacks and native Americans at the bottom of the list.

ME:  do you think the research was valid?

I:  of course not.  IQ testing is notoriously biased and unreliable.  I used to use it a lot as a special Ed. Teacher, and it has value in predicting academic success and identifying specific learning disabilities, but even then it's not foolproof.  As an indicator of innate intelligence, not so much.  As for GNP, it should be obvious that there are so many variables that effect a nations economy.  The authors "logic" had more holes than Charlie Browns ghost costume.

ME: so your conclusion was that the author was just another racist buffoon.

I:  that was certainly apparent.  Actually, I had heard this type of research before, ironically as a student at university of Maine.  Don't get me wrong, U Maine is a fine alma mater.  There was one psych professor who felt that the researcher, though wrong and racist, had a right to be heard.  True liberalism is opposed to almost all censorship.  But what really got my attention in this comment on line was that the author was using his "data" to make the case that Blacks are lower on the evolutionary scale than other races.  In fact, a couple of times, he said Blacks were a lower species or subspecies of human.

ME:  yikes

I: yikes is right! But it occurred to me that this type of reasoning is the inevitable outcome to evolutionary thought.

ME: are you saying all evolutionists are racist?

I:  of course not.  Your average high school or even college biology teachers are decent people.  Typically they've learned enough evolution to teach the subject, but haven't been challenged to see all the implications of where an evolutionary worldview will lead us.  My high school advanced biology teacher was a sweet young lady just a couple years out of college.  She was the cheerleading coach, and, Had great rapport with the kids.  There was nothing evil or bigoted about her.

ME:  what do you mean by the inevitable outcome of evolution?

I:  evolution is based on survival of the fittest, which also means the destruction of the weakest. By its very nature it pits species against species, breed against breed and race against race.  It demands that we identify the lesser and the greater.  Even if it seems like most adherents of evolution don't think that way, there will always be another Stalin or Pol Pot who will.

ME: but what about the idea of species that are interdependent?  Birds need to support each other in their flocks, elephants in herds, etc.  can't we conclude that people have evolved into a communal species who need to help the species as a whole, not fight against each other.

I: while it is true that there are species who survive because of their communal instinct, when they encounter other flocks or herds, these become the enemy, and survival of the fittest group becomes the issue.  Ant colonies will fight each other  elephant herds will fight each other, and, using evolutionary thought, it requires races, nations or other people groups to fight each other.  We're right back to determining which race or tribe is superior.  The alternate belief that humans are all made in Gods image and equally loved by our creator is the more tolerant belief.

ME:  but hasn't Christianity had its own racism throughout history?

I: yes, but just like most evolutionists don't think through their worldview to its inevitable outcome, individual Christians don't always follow a biblical worldview to its inevitable conclusion of the value and sanctity of humanity.  We like to take short cuts and believe what is easy or trendy or empowering without thinking through the entire big picture.

ME:  but to discard evolution because it is racist doesn't mean it's not true.  Should we adopt a worldview based on what we think it should be, or based on evidence of what is actually true?

I:  unfortunately we don't have the time to discuss scientific evidence for creation over evolution, but I would recommend any readers to educate themselves.  I highly suggest they read " the Evolution Cruncher" by Vance Ferrell.  He comes across a little snarky at times, but his book is over 800 pages of detailed science.  The portion on radio halos in granite is worth the price of the book.  I'd also recommend "Darwins Black Box" by Michael Behe.  

ME:  thank you.  It's always a pleasure to speak with you.

I: you're welcome.  I look forward to talking with you again.