Sometimes Backsliding Can Be A Good Thing

This from a conversation today with an evolutionist:

Q: So you think evolution is a good thing?

A: Yes, it got us here didn’t it?

Q: Do you think you’re a good person?

A: Yes, and a good evolutionist (with a laugh, he was a very nice person to speak with).

Q: You wouldn’t mind if we put that to the test would you?

A: Test? What kind of test?

Q: Just a few questions, you only have to answer honestly and you get to grade yourself at the end.

A: OK, shoot.

Q: Are you a racist?darwinfishgone

A: No (his face showed he didn’t like that question at all)

Q: Would you classify yourself as a Darwinist?

A: I think Darwinian evolution is true.

Q: Have you ever read the book by Charles Darwin?

A: The Origin of Species? Yes, it’s been a long time though.

Q: Actually, the full title is “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, right?

A: Yes, that’s it, sounds right.

Q: So as someone who holds to Darwinian evolution, which human race do you think is favored in the struggle for life?

At this point, the man with whom I was speaking became speechless, literally…his lips moved but nothing came out. His discomfort was so profound that I could feel it. It was obvious that, until that moment, this person had never thought about the racial component of the evolution theory-tale.

From that point on, we had a very good conversation about The Gospel. At the end, he told me he would think about our conversation and re-think his belief in evolution.

Sometimes, as with my new found evolutionist friend, backsliding can be a  good thing.

8 Responses to Sometimes Backsliding Can Be A Good Thing

  1. texson5 says:

    Wow!!! That must have been a fun conversation.

    I have had a few opportunities to talk to evolutionists
    but I have never read the book you mention and did not
    even know the full title.

    I do not go out looking for those who believe in evolution
    but I enjoy witnessing to them.

    Thanks for sharing.

  2. Dan says:

    “So as someone who holds to Darwinian evolution, which human race do you think is favored in the struggle for life?”

    Under what conditions? Under current conditions, despite the horrid conditions, people of developing nations (generally non-caucasions), excepting China, are reproducing more quickly than the industrialized (generally caucasion) nations. So, despite the material wealth of industrialized nations, developing nations are more successful – biologically speaking, that is – or so it seems to us today.

    However, how can you know the direction of future change? Evolutionary progress is purely an a posteriori observation based on assessment of environmental factors after the fact. We can have no foreknowledge of what would promote adaptiveness in future conditions, only that we have escaped selective pressures in our current conditions.

  3. jerryk says:

    Hi Texson5, thanks for visiting and your kind comments. It’s always great to hear from others who witness to others about the Good News. The fields are ripe for harvest, pray for more laborers!

  4. Do you really not have any clue how evolution works, or are you just being a sophist? Whether you realize it or not, you used the term race much more literally than it was originally meant. Darwin used the term in a loose sense to mean any distinct groups with inherited differences. Obviously human races do qualify technically, but the tone you used implied that Darwin, a British 19th century evolutionary biologist, meant “race” in the same way that an American 21st century layman would mean it.

    This subtle bit of dishonesty gave the term a pointed emotional aspect the term otherwise would have lacked. Your discussion is a testament to the effectiveness of such methods in rhetoric, but such verbal manipulation only muddies the water of discourse. Not the attitude of someone interested in the truth, just someone interested in winning arguments. Just like the sophists Socrates held in such low regard.

    As for the “favoured human race,” your insinuation that natural selection logically leads to racist conclusions is absurd. Different environments exert different selective pressures. Evolutionary fitness can only be assessed within the context of the given environment and its selective pressure. Adaptive “superiority” is a completely relative phenomenon, and as Dan said, only discernible in retrospect. And by retrospect I mean “Looking back after thousands or millions of years.”

    If you want to know what human race has been “favoured” in a given environment, on the other hand, it’s a rather simple task: you only have to observe what race is native to the area. Note how fair-skinned people are native to higher latitudes and darker skinned people tend to have ancestors that lived closer to the equator. Natural selection is directly responsible for the biogeography of human races.

    Comparing groups of people in different environments with their differing selective pressures is a useless exercise of the apples-to-oranges variety. Dan is on the right track when he says the Chinese currently hold the closest position to “highest Darwinian fitness level among humans” (well, they did before the One Child Policy anyway).

    However, it should be stressed that there is nothing about the Asian race biologically that is increasing its fitness. So really, they don’t have any well-founded claim to being evolutionarily “more advanced” at all. If you study the differences between human races you will find that the differences are so slight and so closely tied to minor environmental differences in their respective places of origin that evolution cannot be sensibly invoked to justify racism. Your obliviousness to this fact betrays your level of understanding of evolution and its implications. I recommend that you invest time into additional study of evolutionary ideas before participating in similar discussions in the future.

    Sorry to sound so hostile,
    ~ Abyssal

  5. […] Sometimes Backsliding Can Be A Good Thing Creationist JerryK wrote: A blog entry detailing a conversation he had with an evolutionist. He implied that because Darwin’s famed […]

  6. jerryk says:

    Hi Abyssal. Thanks for your comments and I didn’t take them to sound hostile. Your argument is not with me but with Darwinism. Racism is racism no matter how it is packaged and its gross ugliness is apparent no matter how it is justified.

  7. Interesting read…but I fail to see how this shows evolution is inherently racist or that Darwin was a racist. Further, I fail to see how this demonstrates that evolutionary theory is false.

    The mention of “favoured races” in the title refers to variations within species. It does not imply racism. If you’ve read the book, surely you noticed that the book hardly mentions humans at all.

    Though I’m sure Darwin was similar in many ways to his contemporaries (viewing those of European descent as superior to those of, say, African descent), he was actually quite liberal and was opposed to slavery.

    I think “Talk Origins” says it well: Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.

    In any case, the title of the book is irrelevant to the facts of science.


  8. […] While perusing other blogs, I came across an interesting one located here.  The author basically interviewed an evolutionist and trapped them into admitting evolution is […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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: