>Some comments on Glenn's post:
>
>>ICR made their standard charge that racism comes from a belief in evolution.
>>This is absolutely unbiblical. Racism comes from sin of man and has been
>>around with us for a long, long time. Long before Darwin ever lived.
>
>Amen. The cartoons and diagrams showing "evolution" at the root of a tree
>bearing all kinds of evil fruit (we've all seen them) are also absolutely
>unbiblical. The plain testimony of the whole of Scripture says that
>sin belongs at the root.
>
SNIP
>
>Bottom line: it's a waste of time, unbiblical, and enttrely too easy to
>blame any theory or doctrine for racism. Given the universality of sin,
>one can always find a nice big "racist" stone to heave, in any direction,
>as soon as one wants a stone. One is bound to hit a "creationist," an
>"evolutionist," or one's neighbor. The biblical message is ALL HAVE SINNED,
>on this point as on all the others.
>
>Paul Nelson
>
>
I am no fan of ICR's position on many things, but I'm not sure that
their intended claim is getting a fair hearing or interpretation here.
First, I doubt that anyone at ICR would dispute that "sin" is the
root of all evil. Exposing this point as a major blow to their claim must,
therefore, miss the point somehow. The more specific question is how is
that "sin" expressed? Would we say in principle, for example, that the
breakdown in a marriage rests MORE on sexual infidelity (a sin) or cheating
on taxes (also a sin). I don't think so. Although sin might be behind it
all, it still seems quite legitimate to identify some more specific
"culprit" as contributing more prominently to the outcome. Maybe the
terminology and emphasis of the ICR are misleading, but I don't know why a
more moderate interpretation can't be given: "sin is the underlying root,
but evolution is a main trunk that has granted justification for racism."
Secondly, ICR may be completely off base even with this more modest
interpretation. Certainly, theistic evolutionists have ground for talking
of some transcending value that would nullify a racist mentality. But I
still have difficulty arguing against the NATURALISTIC thesis of evolution,
particularly in its classic Darwinian variety of natural selection, when
that view DOES appear to support the idea that if different species--and yes
even different races--have evolved by purely naturalistic "blind" chance
and/or necessity, then one can legitimately believe that one race is
"superior" to another; and as such, it possesses a greater "right" to
survive. In this respect and in this context, the ICR point doesn't seem so
irrational and so easily dismissible.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rich Knopp, M.Div., Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy and Christian Apologetics
Lincoln Christian College and Seminary
Lincoln, IL. 62656
"If God didn't exist, He would want us not to believe in Him."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *