HumanJinn
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2013
- Messages
- 102
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
When people make statements about truth, religion and morality, it's fairly easy to understand the foundational basis of their worldview and what it implies. At my Templestream Blogger blog there has been a longstanding question and debate as to whether or not the theory of evolution may be used to rationalize and justify racism and Nazism. Our debate began when I had pointed out that Richard Dawkins had apparently flip flopped on his opinion regarding the influences of the theory of evolution regarding these themes
I do not offer that the theory of evolution in and of itself justifies anything. However, when this theory is combined with moral relativism, and the kind of anti-religious atheism that Richard Dawkins embraces, then not only may racism be rationalized, but racist genocide may be rationalized as well. The purpose of this article is not to imply that Richard Dawkins is personally a racist who believes in racial genocide, but, rather, to outline how anti-religious atheism and the theory of evolution may be used together to rationalize and justify these types of opinions and acts. The rationalization of extreme genocide has been demonstrated in the past and, unfortunately, there are many signs that softkill eugenics techniques are on the rise and genocides of unprecedented proportions will occur in the future.
On October 20, 2011, Richard Dawkins claimed that he refused to debate William Lane Craig because Craig believes the Bible, and in Dawkins' opinion the attacks on Canaan described in the Bible were immoral.[2] The attacks on Canaan were not motivated by biological racial superiority, but were directly related to the possession of territory and specific conditions outlined in scripture.[3] Dawkins' brand of anti-religious atheism, however, does logically allow for the rationalization of racial genocide. Dawkins had expressed outrage when the film Expelled No Intelligence Allowed implied that Darwinist evolution was used to rationalize the acts of genocide conducted by Nazi Germany.[4] By comparing the underlying tenets of evolution, atheism and Christianity in syllogistic form, it is possible to see how non-religious atheism does allow for the rationalization of genocide for biological and racial and ethnic reasons alone, while Christianity does not.
I clarify that I am using the word Christianity rather than Theism because the Koran may be theoretically used to justify violence against innocent people in my opinion. Also, I am referring specifically to non-religious atheism because some atheist worldviews, such as the Buddhist worldview, could not be used to logically rationalize racial genocide because, according to Buddhism, there is no logical basis for abusive elitism, as all people are considered to be ultimately one with each other and the universe. Also, the concept of karma would not justify the killing of innocent people.
A key point in addressing this subject is to realize that racism is not mainly defined as hatred, but as a sense of superiority and elitism. Secondly, a person's epistemological starting point is critical, that is, a person's belief in the nature of knowledge and truth. Thirdly, a person's choice for moral grounding is critical. Though a person may have a logical path for rationalizing moral decisions, this does not mean that the logic is sound or based on truth. For these reasons the word "justification" has a different weight and different meaning for different people.
Atheists have attempted to show there is an objective basis for morality without God's existence. To my knowledge, no firm moral anchor has been offered as a foundational basis for objective atheistic morality. I addressed Eric Wielenberg's objective morality in an article entitled, "A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence"[5] William Lane Craig has dismantled Sam Harris' supposed objective morality based on human flourishing. Craig pointed out that evil societies can flourish as well as good ones, so human flourishing is not a firm and objective basis of morality.[6] With these points in mind, let's move onto some definitions, examples and proofs.
Outline
I. Definitions of racism by reputable American and British dictionaries
II. Scientific racism in contemporary society
III. The uniqueness of human evolution
IV. Syllogisms that prove Dawkins' evolution allows for the theoretical justification of racism and genocide
V. Hitler's justification of genocide
VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics
VII. Reasons why racism is illogical with regard to biblical Christianity and true Judaism
VIII. Conclusion
I. Definitions of racism by reputable American and British dictionaries
Racism in Webster's Online Dictionary
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination[7]
Racism in The Oxford Dictionary
1: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
theories of racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a programme to combat racism.[8]
An historic example of racism based on evolution was the display of Congolese Mbuti pygmy named Ota Benga in a St. Louis anthropology exhibit 1904 and in a New York Bronx Zoo exhibit in 1906. Benga was "exhibited" in the zoo's Monkey House. The purpose of the display was to promote concepts of human evolution and scientific racism. The exhibit did not close due to public outrage, the public seemed to actually enjoy it. There was no hatred involved, but, rather, people found it entertaining. The exhibit was eventually discontinued for the following reason: Benga had, "fashioned a little bow and a set of arrows and began shooting at zoo visitors he found particularly obnoxious! After he wounded a few gawkers, he had to leave the Zoological Park for good"[9] After finding it difficult to cope with his new environment in industrialized Western Civilization, Benga committed suicide in 1916 at the age of 32.
II. Scientific racism in contemporary society
Scientific racism is basically the use of racism in science. Scientific racism has been connected with eugenics, which is an example of guided evolution. Because of it's racist overtones, the word eugenics has fallen out of favor and scientists will tend to use the word genetics to describe this phenomenon today. Scientific racism may also refer to scientific experimentation on unsuspecting people of a specific race.
Beginning in 1932, a US Federal Government study known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment lasted for 40 years ending in 1972. African American males infected with syphilis were left untreated and allowed to die. By the end of the 40 years, 100 had died of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected and 19 of their children had been born with syphilis
The movie "A Constant Gardner" outlines how Big Pharma companies have used unsuspecting Africans for testing purposes. Though the story is not based on a specific historical situation, in a general sense the truth of the scenario has been shown to be the case. For example, in 1996, Pfizer tested a new drug Trovan on young African children which caused chronic joint pain, as pointed out by website Common Dreams
People today use the term racial realism as a politically correct substitute for the word racism when they desire to imply that certain races are superior, even as people use the term genetics as a substitute for eugenics for the same reason when proposing eugenics-based concepts. But changing names does not really change the meaning and implications of these practices and beliefs
A 2006 book, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, by Richard Lynn, lists races by intelligence and brain size. Nicholas Mackintosh of the University of Cambridge has pointed out faults in the research testing methods and therefore finds the results unreliable. Nevertheless, if people do believe the results, and many do, then the rationale of equating racial superiority with higher intelligence is not difficult to follow. If you asked people, "Would you prefer to be less intelligent?" - I don't believe you would find any takers. The theory of evolution offers that complex life developed from simple life, complex life being considered more developed and, thus, more suitable to adaptation and more "favored" as Darwin put it, in the struggle for survival. Lynn's book offers various graphs and tables
Race Mean I.Q Mean brain size (cc)
East-Asians (China, Taïwan, Japan, Korea) 105 1416
Europeans 100 1369
South-East Asians 90 1332
Pacific Islanders 85 1317
South Asians and North Africans 84 1293
Africans 67 1282
Australian aborigines 62 1225
IQ tests are used to indicate relative intelligence levels and problem solving abilities while SAT tests in the United States have also been used to show comparative results between races. The results of US SAT tests show the same racial distribution results as Lynn's IQ results. Many believe the IQ results would be more equal if the upbringing and educational conditioning of the children were equally supportive. Also, the differences between races are miniscule in comparison to the differences between humans and primates. In any event, these types of tests may be used by elitists to help rationalize eugenics policies against specific people groups. John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe has noted the widespread acceptance of scientific racism today and financial elitism, "The social sciences in our time are thoroughly imbued with eugenic theory. It would be a noble work to rescue them, to work through the basic texts and theories of each field identifying the eugenic taint and replacing it with an unswerving devotion to the dignity of the individual, including the poor."[13]
III. The uniqueness of human evolution
In keeping with the theory of evolution, homo sapiens evolved in a unique manner because we have the ability to move about and rationalize where and how we will live. Unlike other creatures, humans may live basically anywhere on earth and are not subject to such instincts as fixed migrating patterns. One question scientists have asked is, "Why are races in tropical climates considered less intelligent according to studies?" In his book review of Race differences in intelligence Nicholas Mackintosh questioned Lynn's apparent manipulation of data and also his hypothesis that migration to more harsh northern climates and ice ages selected for higher IQ by pointing to harshness of environments such as the Australian Outback."
A second opinion offers that intelligence develops progressively regardless of the environment. In other words, the migration to Europe required reasoning skills that had already been developed on numerous fronts: "This migration was made possible by greater intelligence and new cultural technologies, probably including better hunting skills and the ability to create fire." There are at least three explanatory models of how and why human intelligence supposedly evolved.
No matter what theory is considered, it may be pointed out that human reasoning and ideology have influenced human evolution to various degrees since the time human reasoning supposedly began to develop. The practice of child sacrifice to idols, warring between rival tribes, and more recent secretive sterilization techniques in third world countries have all played a role in human evolution. In the big picture, from Neanderthal man to now, it cannot be disputed that human evolution has generally selected for greater intelligence. Higher intelligence can be seen as a survival advantage in either a tropical or cold climate.
The basic understanding in evolutionary theory is that a shift has occurred in human evolution in which the need for brute strength has been replaced with an increased need for problem solving skills, social skills and organizational skills. Studies at the Rochester Institute of Technology outline theories of how human intelligence has continued to evolve into domain-specific fields
The industrial mechanization of human acts and human processes is known as postbiological evolution. This factor especially comes into play with the overwhelming use of computerized intelligence in our time. For these reasons, from a completely materialistic perspective, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race. As population control becomes an increasingly serious concern, who will be the ones to make the decisions as to who will survive? How will evolution 'select' for human survival? William Lane Craig pointed out in his book On Guard that morals based on atheistic, non-religious evolutionary thought are basically subjective and uncertain.[17]
In light of the above documented facts, the following syllogisms outline how an anti-religious atheist elite could use the theory of evolution in order to rationalize and justify racism and genocide.
IV. Syllogisms that prove Dawkins' evolution allows for the theoretical justification of racism and genocide
1. In accordance with non-religious atheism, morality is merely the result of human evolution.
2. Evolution is a-moral and offers no objective basis for determining right and wrong behavior.
3. Therefore, in accordance with non-religious atheism, there is no objective basis for morality.
1. According to evolution theory, the intelligence of homo sapiens has increased due to natural selection.
2. In theory, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race.
3. Therefore, the theory of evolution could allow for the theoretical superiority of certain human races.
1. The primary definition of racism offers that certain human races are superior to other races.
2. The theory of evolution allows for the theoretical superiority of certain human races.
3. Therefore, the theory of evolution allows for racism to be theoretically justified.
1. In accordance with non-religious atheism and evolution, there is no objective basis for morality.
2. If there is no objective basis for morality, then genocide by an elite group could be rationalized.
3. Therefore, genocide by an elite group could be rationalized based on non-religious atheism and evolution.
1. Biblical Christianity offers that all people are created with God-given value.
2. If all people are created with God-given value, then racism is not logical.
3. Therefore, racism is not logical in accordance with biblical Christianity.
V. Hitler's justification of genocide
bodies of prisoners
Jerry Bergman has outlined the alleged moral justifications for the Holocaust is an enlightening article entitled, "Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust". Bergman outline's Hitler's Darwinian rationale in quotes as follows:
Hitler’s eugenic-based goals
"Nazi policies resulted less from a ‘hatred’ toward Jewish or other peoples than from the idealistic goal of preventing ‘pollution’ of the superior race.[18] Mein Kamf outlines,
‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).'[19]
Hitler elaborated on his Darwinian views by comparing the strong killing the weak to a cat devouring a mouse, concluding that ultimately the Jews must be eliminated because they cause.
"...peoples to decay …. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements. One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird … to know the laws of nature … enables us to obey them.’[20]
The opposition to religion
"The opposition to religion was a prominent feature of German science, and thus later German political theory, from its very beginning. As Stein summarized Haeckel in a lecture titled On evolution: Darwin’s Theory:
'… [Haeckel] argued that Darwin was correct … humankind had unquestionably evolved from the animal kingdom. Thus, and here the fatal step was taken in Haeckel’s first major exposition of Darwinism in Germany, humankind’s social and political existence is governed by the laws of evolution, natural selection, and biology, as clearly shown by Darwin. To argue otherwise was backward superstition. And, of course, it was organized religion which did this and thus stood in the way of scientific and social progress.’[21]
VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics
On February 28th, 1995, in an interview with Nick Pollard, Richard Dawkins stated,
"So, for example, I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought."[22]
In a 1997 debate between two evolutionists, Jaron Lanier and Richard Dawkins, the following question was asked and addressed:
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’
Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’
Dawkins went on to say, "Even a cheetah as a killing machine is beautiful. But the process that gave rise to it is, indeed, nature red in tooth and claw. However, you go further when you call evolution evil. I would simply say nature is pitilessly indifferent to human concerns and should be ignored when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems. We should instead say, We're on our own. We are unique in the animal kingdom in having brains big enough not to follow the dictates of the selfish genes. And we are in the unique position of being able to use our brains to work out together the kind of society in which we want to live. But the one thing we must definitely not do is what Julian Huxley did, which is try to see evolution as some kind of an object lesson."[23]
In an article entitled, "Dawkins sides with the race realists", Dawkins is quoted as saying,
"Political opposition to eugenic breeding of humans sometimes spills over into the almost certainly false assertion that it is impossible. Not only is it immoral, you may hear it said, it wouldn’t work. Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work. I have no doubt that, if you set your mind to it and had enough time and enough political power, you could breed a race of superior body-builders, or high-jumpers, or shot-putters; pearl fishers, sumo wrestlers, or sprinters; or (I suspect, although now with less confidence because there are no animal precedents) superior musicians, poets, mathematicians or wine-tasters.”[24]
In his 2009 book, The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins clarifies that he is not "confident" about the moral rightness or wrongness of eugenics, but he is confident that eugenics and selective breeding scientifically work to bring about improvements in physiological characteristics,
"The reason I am confident about selective breeding for athletic prowess is that the qualities needed are so similar to those that demonstrably work in the breeding of racehorses and carthorses, of greyhounds and sledge dogs. The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for mental or otherwise uniquely human traits is that there are so few examples where an attempt at selective breeding in animals has ever failed, even for traits that might have been thought surprising."[25]
Any brief review of the subject of human selective breeding, also known as eugenics, would reveal that the subject is tainted with scientific racism, civil rights abuses and horrific genocide. Richard Dawkins, as a professional "evolutionary biologist", should be aware of this history and context. As Dawkins weighs in on this subject there appears to be no condemnation of scientific racism, civil rights abuses or genocide. On the contrary, Dawkins' comments imply that he retains a cautiously open-minded moral opinion. Dawkins' moral opinion on eugenics is subtly implied in his parenthetical phrase, (though not the moral or political desirability). There are a few aspects that help to inform the meaning.
First, let's be clear that "selective breeding for ...human traits" is eugenics. Now, let's see what his parenthetical phrase implies. The definition of the word "though" has variants. For one, it can be used to show a decrease in value: "Another use of though as a conjunction is to introduce a statement that makes what you have just said less true or less likely..."[26] Dawkins' "pretty confident" may be reduced to "less confident" or "not confident." In this case, the construct could be, (though I am not confident about the moral or political desirability of eugenics). The meaning implies an open-ended uncertainty, not opposition towards the idea.
Another case of the word "though" may possibly involve a substitute "in spite of the fact" in the phrase. For example, (in spite of the fact that I am unconfident about the moral or political desirability of eugenics). Again, this does not imply moral opposition, but moral uncertainty and an open-ended conclusion. This can be fleshed out by adding some alternative synonyms for the word unconfident. In a typical thesaurus, unconfident is synonymous with unsure and unconvinced. Consider the results: (in spite of the fact that I am unsure about the moral or political desirability of eugenics) and (in spite of the fact that I am unconvinced about the moral or political desirability of eugenics). In both cases there is a sense of open-ended moral uncertainty. When we fill in the necessary parts to form a complete thought, we have this, (though [I'm] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics]). As these points imply, it is logical to assume that Dawkins is not explicitly opposed to eugenics, but is apparently morally undecided.
V II. Reasons why racism is illogical with regard to biblical Christianity and true Judaism
According to biblical Christianity, people are created with both a physical body and transcendent spiritual nature. The most valuable aspect of human life is shown to be the eternal spiritual aspect. Because we cannot know as humans a person's ultimate choice between good and evil, between seeking truth and rejecting truth, it's not logical to assume supremacy over any other person.
Some people point to reformer Martin Luther as an example of anti-Semitic racism. But it's a fallacy to assume the beliefs of one person reflect the true foundation of any religion or belief system. From one perspective it was a serious mistake for the Jews to reject Jesus and crucify an innocent person. But from another perspective this was necessary in order for salvation to come to all people, both Jews and Gentiles. Luther's views on the Jews were quite shortsighted. The Apostle Paul described in Romans 11 why it was necessary for the Jews to reject Christ but Paul emphasizes that the blindness of the Jews would be temporary and eventually there would be a spiritual revival among Jews "and in this way, all Israel will be saved." as noted in Romans 11.26. For Gentiles to be vengeful at Jews for killing the Messiah is shortsighted and Romans 12.9 clearly states, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."(KJV)
At times the Jews are called racists. But this attitude does not follow logically from a biblical understanding of true Judaic spirituality. When God chose Abraham from amongst his pagan tribe to begin a new nation, the idea was not that Jews would be biologically superior or culturally superior but that they would be holy unto God. The concept of holiness relates to being wholly dedicated to God. God's intention was that that the Jews would be "lights unto the Gentiles" showing the reality of God's existence and holiness and the need for a Messiah who would offer complete spiritual redemption for both Jews and Gentiles, as noted,
"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles..." (Isaiah 42.6)
The Messiah was to make a way for all people to understand and enjoy the blessings of living a holy life in close fellowship with God. Jeremiah 3.31-34 outlines this truth:
“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them", declares the LORD. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD.“For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”(NIV)
In short, biblical holiness does not imply justification for racism because it is available to all people. Though Jews were used as examples, all people can enjoy the same type of close relationship with God. To illustrate why holiness has nothing to do with racism, let me offer an example. If a person said, "You don't swear or look at porno, therefor you are a racist!" this would not make very much sense, would it? Likewise, if a nation had specific moral rules and beliefs, would that mean the nation was racist? That's not a logical deduction.
VIII. Conclusion
Hitler considered the subject of human advancement from a purely biological, materialist perspective. His ethnic genocides were rationalized based on a goal to improve the human race, or what he considered an advanced version of it. Despite any gratuitous religious words to the contrary, Hitler operated as a relativist atheist with no reverence for a biblical understanding of human exceptionalism. Human exceptionalism for true Bible believing Christians is basically the understanding that humans are created in God's image and the life of a human being has a unique spiritual value in comparison to the life of a slug, a chicken or a cow.
As noted, Richard Dawkins has outlined his position as a moral relativist. Dawkins has also acknowledged he is a militant atheist opposed to religion, as noted in quotes such as this one, "Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end."[27] While it's true that some religions may teach violence against innocent people, it's unfair to lump all religions together as "dangerous" for this reason. Christianity may support the concept of just war, but it generally places a higher value on human life than atheism does. Biblical Christianity offers that all people are created with God-given value and significance which exceed the value of combined physiological characteristics.
Upon close examination, the types of racial genocides that occurred in Nazi Germany could easily be justified by Richard Dawkins' documented foundational beliefs. This is simply a matter of logic and reason. Many signs show the world is likely to experience a massive genocide in the future, a "culling of the heard," based on the plans of elitist globalists using the same type of underlying logic. The book cover image featured in this article covers Jane Springer's book Genocide, which asks a key question, "What can be done to prevent genocide from happening in the future?" The simplest answer would be to become a Christian who understands the scriptures and the true value of human life.
References
[1] Templestream, Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False, Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False
[2] The Guardian, Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig, Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig | Richard Dawkins | Comment is free | theguardian.com
[3] Templestream, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine
[4] Templestream, Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False , Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False
[5] Templestream, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence
[6] Thinking Matters, How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy, How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy | Thinking Matters
[7] Merriam Webster Dictionary, racism definition, Racism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[8] The Oxford Dictionary, racism definition, racism: definition of racism in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)
[9] Revolution Against Evolution, Ota Benga: The Story of the Pygmy on Display in a Zoo, http://www.rae.org/otabenga.html
[10] Info Please, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html
[11] Common Dreams, The True Story of How Multinational Drug Companies Took Liberties with African Lives, Shia in Baghdad Join Attack on US
[12] Asian Week, Asian Americans are #1 on the SAT, Asian Americans are #1 on the SAT | AsianWeek
[13] Eugenics Watch, Introduction to Eugenics by John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, http://www.eugenics-watch.com/intro.html
[14] Enotes, Race Differences in Intelligence (book), Study Guides, Reference Materials for Science, Literature, History & more - eNotes.com Mackintosh, N.J. (January-February 2007). "Book review - Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary hypothesis". Intelligence 35 (1): 94–96. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.08.001.
[15] Palomar college, Homo erectus, Early Human Evolution: Homo ergaster and erectus
[16] Rochester Institute of Technology, The Evolution of Human Intelligence: Increasing Importance of Domain-Specific Intelligence in the Modern Environment, The Evolution of Human Intelligence
[17] Craig, William Lane, On Guard, 2010, David Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, p. 143
[18] True Origin, Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust, - Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust - original source: Hitler, A., Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941–1944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 116, 1953.
[19] Ibid. (Mein Kamf reference: Clark, Robert, Darwin: Before and After, Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958., P. 115)
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] February 28th, 1995, in an interview with Nick Pollard., Dr. Richard Dawkins interviewed by Nick Pollard at New College, published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition (vol 18 no. 3) February 28th, 1995, Culturewatch - Exploring the message behind the media
[23] ‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62., http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-5477.html
[24] Majority Rights, "Dawkins sides with the race realists" Dawkins sides with the race realists.
[25] Dawkins, Richard, The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009. p20, http://www.tocorre.com/dat/16/u2/21/f378192.7509.lg.pdf
[26] One Stop English, Your English: Word grammar: though
Your English: Word grammar: though | Onestopenglish
[27] Positive Atheism, Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001), Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations
(Article revised 04/23/12)
I do not offer that the theory of evolution in and of itself justifies anything. However, when this theory is combined with moral relativism, and the kind of anti-religious atheism that Richard Dawkins embraces, then not only may racism be rationalized, but racist genocide may be rationalized as well. The purpose of this article is not to imply that Richard Dawkins is personally a racist who believes in racial genocide, but, rather, to outline how anti-religious atheism and the theory of evolution may be used together to rationalize and justify these types of opinions and acts. The rationalization of extreme genocide has been demonstrated in the past and, unfortunately, there are many signs that softkill eugenics techniques are on the rise and genocides of unprecedented proportions will occur in the future.
On October 20, 2011, Richard Dawkins claimed that he refused to debate William Lane Craig because Craig believes the Bible, and in Dawkins' opinion the attacks on Canaan described in the Bible were immoral.[2] The attacks on Canaan were not motivated by biological racial superiority, but were directly related to the possession of territory and specific conditions outlined in scripture.[3] Dawkins' brand of anti-religious atheism, however, does logically allow for the rationalization of racial genocide. Dawkins had expressed outrage when the film Expelled No Intelligence Allowed implied that Darwinist evolution was used to rationalize the acts of genocide conducted by Nazi Germany.[4] By comparing the underlying tenets of evolution, atheism and Christianity in syllogistic form, it is possible to see how non-religious atheism does allow for the rationalization of genocide for biological and racial and ethnic reasons alone, while Christianity does not.
I clarify that I am using the word Christianity rather than Theism because the Koran may be theoretically used to justify violence against innocent people in my opinion. Also, I am referring specifically to non-religious atheism because some atheist worldviews, such as the Buddhist worldview, could not be used to logically rationalize racial genocide because, according to Buddhism, there is no logical basis for abusive elitism, as all people are considered to be ultimately one with each other and the universe. Also, the concept of karma would not justify the killing of innocent people.
A key point in addressing this subject is to realize that racism is not mainly defined as hatred, but as a sense of superiority and elitism. Secondly, a person's epistemological starting point is critical, that is, a person's belief in the nature of knowledge and truth. Thirdly, a person's choice for moral grounding is critical. Though a person may have a logical path for rationalizing moral decisions, this does not mean that the logic is sound or based on truth. For these reasons the word "justification" has a different weight and different meaning for different people.
Atheists have attempted to show there is an objective basis for morality without God's existence. To my knowledge, no firm moral anchor has been offered as a foundational basis for objective atheistic morality. I addressed Eric Wielenberg's objective morality in an article entitled, "A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence"[5] William Lane Craig has dismantled Sam Harris' supposed objective morality based on human flourishing. Craig pointed out that evil societies can flourish as well as good ones, so human flourishing is not a firm and objective basis of morality.[6] With these points in mind, let's move onto some definitions, examples and proofs.
Outline
I. Definitions of racism by reputable American and British dictionaries
II. Scientific racism in contemporary society
III. The uniqueness of human evolution
IV. Syllogisms that prove Dawkins' evolution allows for the theoretical justification of racism and genocide
V. Hitler's justification of genocide
VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics
VII. Reasons why racism is illogical with regard to biblical Christianity and true Judaism
VIII. Conclusion
I. Definitions of racism by reputable American and British dictionaries
Racism in Webster's Online Dictionary
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination[7]
Racism in The Oxford Dictionary
1: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
theories of racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior: a programme to combat racism.[8]
An historic example of racism based on evolution was the display of Congolese Mbuti pygmy named Ota Benga in a St. Louis anthropology exhibit 1904 and in a New York Bronx Zoo exhibit in 1906. Benga was "exhibited" in the zoo's Monkey House. The purpose of the display was to promote concepts of human evolution and scientific racism. The exhibit did not close due to public outrage, the public seemed to actually enjoy it. There was no hatred involved, but, rather, people found it entertaining. The exhibit was eventually discontinued for the following reason: Benga had, "fashioned a little bow and a set of arrows and began shooting at zoo visitors he found particularly obnoxious! After he wounded a few gawkers, he had to leave the Zoological Park for good"[9] After finding it difficult to cope with his new environment in industrialized Western Civilization, Benga committed suicide in 1916 at the age of 32.
II. Scientific racism in contemporary society
Scientific racism is basically the use of racism in science. Scientific racism has been connected with eugenics, which is an example of guided evolution. Because of it's racist overtones, the word eugenics has fallen out of favor and scientists will tend to use the word genetics to describe this phenomenon today. Scientific racism may also refer to scientific experimentation on unsuspecting people of a specific race.
Beginning in 1932, a US Federal Government study known as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment lasted for 40 years ending in 1972. African American males infected with syphilis were left untreated and allowed to die. By the end of the 40 years, 100 had died of related complications, 40 of their wives had been infected and 19 of their children had been born with syphilis
The movie "A Constant Gardner" outlines how Big Pharma companies have used unsuspecting Africans for testing purposes. Though the story is not based on a specific historical situation, in a general sense the truth of the scenario has been shown to be the case. For example, in 1996, Pfizer tested a new drug Trovan on young African children which caused chronic joint pain, as pointed out by website Common Dreams
People today use the term racial realism as a politically correct substitute for the word racism when they desire to imply that certain races are superior, even as people use the term genetics as a substitute for eugenics for the same reason when proposing eugenics-based concepts. But changing names does not really change the meaning and implications of these practices and beliefs
A 2006 book, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis, by Richard Lynn, lists races by intelligence and brain size. Nicholas Mackintosh of the University of Cambridge has pointed out faults in the research testing methods and therefore finds the results unreliable. Nevertheless, if people do believe the results, and many do, then the rationale of equating racial superiority with higher intelligence is not difficult to follow. If you asked people, "Would you prefer to be less intelligent?" - I don't believe you would find any takers. The theory of evolution offers that complex life developed from simple life, complex life being considered more developed and, thus, more suitable to adaptation and more "favored" as Darwin put it, in the struggle for survival. Lynn's book offers various graphs and tables
Race Mean I.Q Mean brain size (cc)
East-Asians (China, Taïwan, Japan, Korea) 105 1416
Europeans 100 1369
South-East Asians 90 1332
Pacific Islanders 85 1317
South Asians and North Africans 84 1293
Africans 67 1282
Australian aborigines 62 1225
IQ tests are used to indicate relative intelligence levels and problem solving abilities while SAT tests in the United States have also been used to show comparative results between races. The results of US SAT tests show the same racial distribution results as Lynn's IQ results. Many believe the IQ results would be more equal if the upbringing and educational conditioning of the children were equally supportive. Also, the differences between races are miniscule in comparison to the differences between humans and primates. In any event, these types of tests may be used by elitists to help rationalize eugenics policies against specific people groups. John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe has noted the widespread acceptance of scientific racism today and financial elitism, "The social sciences in our time are thoroughly imbued with eugenic theory. It would be a noble work to rescue them, to work through the basic texts and theories of each field identifying the eugenic taint and replacing it with an unswerving devotion to the dignity of the individual, including the poor."[13]
III. The uniqueness of human evolution
In keeping with the theory of evolution, homo sapiens evolved in a unique manner because we have the ability to move about and rationalize where and how we will live. Unlike other creatures, humans may live basically anywhere on earth and are not subject to such instincts as fixed migrating patterns. One question scientists have asked is, "Why are races in tropical climates considered less intelligent according to studies?" In his book review of Race differences in intelligence Nicholas Mackintosh questioned Lynn's apparent manipulation of data and also his hypothesis that migration to more harsh northern climates and ice ages selected for higher IQ by pointing to harshness of environments such as the Australian Outback."
A second opinion offers that intelligence develops progressively regardless of the environment. In other words, the migration to Europe required reasoning skills that had already been developed on numerous fronts: "This migration was made possible by greater intelligence and new cultural technologies, probably including better hunting skills and the ability to create fire." There are at least three explanatory models of how and why human intelligence supposedly evolved.
No matter what theory is considered, it may be pointed out that human reasoning and ideology have influenced human evolution to various degrees since the time human reasoning supposedly began to develop. The practice of child sacrifice to idols, warring between rival tribes, and more recent secretive sterilization techniques in third world countries have all played a role in human evolution. In the big picture, from Neanderthal man to now, it cannot be disputed that human evolution has generally selected for greater intelligence. Higher intelligence can be seen as a survival advantage in either a tropical or cold climate.
The basic understanding in evolutionary theory is that a shift has occurred in human evolution in which the need for brute strength has been replaced with an increased need for problem solving skills, social skills and organizational skills. Studies at the Rochester Institute of Technology outline theories of how human intelligence has continued to evolve into domain-specific fields
The industrial mechanization of human acts and human processes is known as postbiological evolution. This factor especially comes into play with the overwhelming use of computerized intelligence in our time. For these reasons, from a completely materialistic perspective, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race. As population control becomes an increasingly serious concern, who will be the ones to make the decisions as to who will survive? How will evolution 'select' for human survival? William Lane Craig pointed out in his book On Guard that morals based on atheistic, non-religious evolutionary thought are basically subjective and uncertain.[17]
In light of the above documented facts, the following syllogisms outline how an anti-religious atheist elite could use the theory of evolution in order to rationalize and justify racism and genocide.
IV. Syllogisms that prove Dawkins' evolution allows for the theoretical justification of racism and genocide
1. In accordance with non-religious atheism, morality is merely the result of human evolution.
2. Evolution is a-moral and offers no objective basis for determining right and wrong behavior.
3. Therefore, in accordance with non-religious atheism, there is no objective basis for morality.
1. According to evolution theory, the intelligence of homo sapiens has increased due to natural selection.
2. In theory, a more intelligent human race could be considered superior to a less intelligent human race.
3. Therefore, the theory of evolution could allow for the theoretical superiority of certain human races.
1. The primary definition of racism offers that certain human races are superior to other races.
2. The theory of evolution allows for the theoretical superiority of certain human races.
3. Therefore, the theory of evolution allows for racism to be theoretically justified.
1. In accordance with non-religious atheism and evolution, there is no objective basis for morality.
2. If there is no objective basis for morality, then genocide by an elite group could be rationalized.
3. Therefore, genocide by an elite group could be rationalized based on non-religious atheism and evolution.
1. Biblical Christianity offers that all people are created with God-given value.
2. If all people are created with God-given value, then racism is not logical.
3. Therefore, racism is not logical in accordance with biblical Christianity.
V. Hitler's justification of genocide
bodies of prisoners
Jerry Bergman has outlined the alleged moral justifications for the Holocaust is an enlightening article entitled, "Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust". Bergman outline's Hitler's Darwinian rationale in quotes as follows:
Hitler’s eugenic-based goals
"Nazi policies resulted less from a ‘hatred’ toward Jewish or other peoples than from the idealistic goal of preventing ‘pollution’ of the superior race.[18] Mein Kamf outlines,
‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).'[19]
Hitler elaborated on his Darwinian views by comparing the strong killing the weak to a cat devouring a mouse, concluding that ultimately the Jews must be eliminated because they cause.
"...peoples to decay …. In the long run nature eliminates the noxious elements. One may be repelled by this law of nature which demands that all living things should mutually devour one another. The fly is snapped up by a dragon-fly, which itself is swallowed by a bird, which itself falls victim to a larger bird … to know the laws of nature … enables us to obey them.’[20]
The opposition to religion
"The opposition to religion was a prominent feature of German science, and thus later German political theory, from its very beginning. As Stein summarized Haeckel in a lecture titled On evolution: Darwin’s Theory:
'… [Haeckel] argued that Darwin was correct … humankind had unquestionably evolved from the animal kingdom. Thus, and here the fatal step was taken in Haeckel’s first major exposition of Darwinism in Germany, humankind’s social and political existence is governed by the laws of evolution, natural selection, and biology, as clearly shown by Darwin. To argue otherwise was backward superstition. And, of course, it was organized religion which did this and thus stood in the way of scientific and social progress.’[21]
VI. Richard Dawkins' moral relativism and views on eugenics
On February 28th, 1995, in an interview with Nick Pollard, Richard Dawkins stated,
"So, for example, I can show that from a Darwinian point of view there is more Darwinian advantage to a male in being promiscuous and a female being faithful, without saying that I therefore think human males are justified in being promiscuous and cheating on their wives. There is no logical connection between what is and what ought."[22]
In a 1997 debate between two evolutionists, Jaron Lanier and Richard Dawkins, the following question was asked and addressed:
Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’
Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’
Dawkins went on to say, "Even a cheetah as a killing machine is beautiful. But the process that gave rise to it is, indeed, nature red in tooth and claw. However, you go further when you call evolution evil. I would simply say nature is pitilessly indifferent to human concerns and should be ignored when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems. We should instead say, We're on our own. We are unique in the animal kingdom in having brains big enough not to follow the dictates of the selfish genes. And we are in the unique position of being able to use our brains to work out together the kind of society in which we want to live. But the one thing we must definitely not do is what Julian Huxley did, which is try to see evolution as some kind of an object lesson."[23]
In an article entitled, "Dawkins sides with the race realists", Dawkins is quoted as saying,
"Political opposition to eugenic breeding of humans sometimes spills over into the almost certainly false assertion that it is impossible. Not only is it immoral, you may hear it said, it wouldn’t work. Unfortunately, to say that something is morally wrong, or politically undesirable, is not to say that it wouldn’t work. I have no doubt that, if you set your mind to it and had enough time and enough political power, you could breed a race of superior body-builders, or high-jumpers, or shot-putters; pearl fishers, sumo wrestlers, or sprinters; or (I suspect, although now with less confidence because there are no animal precedents) superior musicians, poets, mathematicians or wine-tasters.”[24]
In his 2009 book, The Greatest Show on Earth, Dawkins clarifies that he is not "confident" about the moral rightness or wrongness of eugenics, but he is confident that eugenics and selective breeding scientifically work to bring about improvements in physiological characteristics,
"The reason I am confident about selective breeding for athletic prowess is that the qualities needed are so similar to those that demonstrably work in the breeding of racehorses and carthorses, of greyhounds and sledge dogs. The reason I am still pretty confident about the practical feasibility (though not the moral or political desirability) of selective breeding for mental or otherwise uniquely human traits is that there are so few examples where an attempt at selective breeding in animals has ever failed, even for traits that might have been thought surprising."[25]
Any brief review of the subject of human selective breeding, also known as eugenics, would reveal that the subject is tainted with scientific racism, civil rights abuses and horrific genocide. Richard Dawkins, as a professional "evolutionary biologist", should be aware of this history and context. As Dawkins weighs in on this subject there appears to be no condemnation of scientific racism, civil rights abuses or genocide. On the contrary, Dawkins' comments imply that he retains a cautiously open-minded moral opinion. Dawkins' moral opinion on eugenics is subtly implied in his parenthetical phrase, (though not the moral or political desirability). There are a few aspects that help to inform the meaning.
First, let's be clear that "selective breeding for ...human traits" is eugenics. Now, let's see what his parenthetical phrase implies. The definition of the word "though" has variants. For one, it can be used to show a decrease in value: "Another use of though as a conjunction is to introduce a statement that makes what you have just said less true or less likely..."[26] Dawkins' "pretty confident" may be reduced to "less confident" or "not confident." In this case, the construct could be, (though I am not confident about the moral or political desirability of eugenics). The meaning implies an open-ended uncertainty, not opposition towards the idea.
Another case of the word "though" may possibly involve a substitute "in spite of the fact" in the phrase. For example, (in spite of the fact that I am unconfident about the moral or political desirability of eugenics). Again, this does not imply moral opposition, but moral uncertainty and an open-ended conclusion. This can be fleshed out by adding some alternative synonyms for the word unconfident. In a typical thesaurus, unconfident is synonymous with unsure and unconvinced. Consider the results: (in spite of the fact that I am unsure about the moral or political desirability of eugenics) and (in spite of the fact that I am unconvinced about the moral or political desirability of eugenics). In both cases there is a sense of open-ended moral uncertainty. When we fill in the necessary parts to form a complete thought, we have this, (though [I'm] not [confident about] the moral or political desirability [of eugenics]). As these points imply, it is logical to assume that Dawkins is not explicitly opposed to eugenics, but is apparently morally undecided.
V II. Reasons why racism is illogical with regard to biblical Christianity and true Judaism
According to biblical Christianity, people are created with both a physical body and transcendent spiritual nature. The most valuable aspect of human life is shown to be the eternal spiritual aspect. Because we cannot know as humans a person's ultimate choice between good and evil, between seeking truth and rejecting truth, it's not logical to assume supremacy over any other person.
Some people point to reformer Martin Luther as an example of anti-Semitic racism. But it's a fallacy to assume the beliefs of one person reflect the true foundation of any religion or belief system. From one perspective it was a serious mistake for the Jews to reject Jesus and crucify an innocent person. But from another perspective this was necessary in order for salvation to come to all people, both Jews and Gentiles. Luther's views on the Jews were quite shortsighted. The Apostle Paul described in Romans 11 why it was necessary for the Jews to reject Christ but Paul emphasizes that the blindness of the Jews would be temporary and eventually there would be a spiritual revival among Jews "and in this way, all Israel will be saved." as noted in Romans 11.26. For Gentiles to be vengeful at Jews for killing the Messiah is shortsighted and Romans 12.9 clearly states, "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."(KJV)
At times the Jews are called racists. But this attitude does not follow logically from a biblical understanding of true Judaic spirituality. When God chose Abraham from amongst his pagan tribe to begin a new nation, the idea was not that Jews would be biologically superior or culturally superior but that they would be holy unto God. The concept of holiness relates to being wholly dedicated to God. God's intention was that that the Jews would be "lights unto the Gentiles" showing the reality of God's existence and holiness and the need for a Messiah who would offer complete spiritual redemption for both Jews and Gentiles, as noted,
"I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles..." (Isaiah 42.6)
The Messiah was to make a way for all people to understand and enjoy the blessings of living a holy life in close fellowship with God. Jeremiah 3.31-34 outlines this truth:
“The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them", declares the LORD. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD.“For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”(NIV)
In short, biblical holiness does not imply justification for racism because it is available to all people. Though Jews were used as examples, all people can enjoy the same type of close relationship with God. To illustrate why holiness has nothing to do with racism, let me offer an example. If a person said, "You don't swear or look at porno, therefor you are a racist!" this would not make very much sense, would it? Likewise, if a nation had specific moral rules and beliefs, would that mean the nation was racist? That's not a logical deduction.
VIII. Conclusion
Hitler considered the subject of human advancement from a purely biological, materialist perspective. His ethnic genocides were rationalized based on a goal to improve the human race, or what he considered an advanced version of it. Despite any gratuitous religious words to the contrary, Hitler operated as a relativist atheist with no reverence for a biblical understanding of human exceptionalism. Human exceptionalism for true Bible believing Christians is basically the understanding that humans are created in God's image and the life of a human being has a unique spiritual value in comparison to the life of a slug, a chicken or a cow.
As noted, Richard Dawkins has outlined his position as a moral relativist. Dawkins has also acknowledged he is a militant atheist opposed to religion, as noted in quotes such as this one, "Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end."[27] While it's true that some religions may teach violence against innocent people, it's unfair to lump all religions together as "dangerous" for this reason. Christianity may support the concept of just war, but it generally places a higher value on human life than atheism does. Biblical Christianity offers that all people are created with God-given value and significance which exceed the value of combined physiological characteristics.
Upon close examination, the types of racial genocides that occurred in Nazi Germany could easily be justified by Richard Dawkins' documented foundational beliefs. This is simply a matter of logic and reason. Many signs show the world is likely to experience a massive genocide in the future, a "culling of the heard," based on the plans of elitist globalists using the same type of underlying logic. The book cover image featured in this article covers Jane Springer's book Genocide, which asks a key question, "What can be done to prevent genocide from happening in the future?" The simplest answer would be to become a Christian who understands the scriptures and the true value of human life.
References
[1] Templestream, Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False, Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False
[2] The Guardian, Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig, Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig | Richard Dawkins | Comment is free | theguardian.com
[3] Templestream, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine
[4] Templestream, Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False , Logical Reasons why Moral Relativism is False
[5] Templestream, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence, A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence
[6] Thinking Matters, How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy, How William Lane Craig thrashed Sam Harris like a naughty puppy | Thinking Matters
[7] Merriam Webster Dictionary, racism definition, Racism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
[8] The Oxford Dictionary, racism definition, racism: definition of racism in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)
[9] Revolution Against Evolution, Ota Benga: The Story of the Pygmy on Display in a Zoo, http://www.rae.org/otabenga.html
[10] Info Please, Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html
[11] Common Dreams, The True Story of How Multinational Drug Companies Took Liberties with African Lives, Shia in Baghdad Join Attack on US
[12] Asian Week, Asian Americans are #1 on the SAT, Asian Americans are #1 on the SAT | AsianWeek
[13] Eugenics Watch, Introduction to Eugenics by John Cavanaugh-O'Keefe, http://www.eugenics-watch.com/intro.html
[14] Enotes, Race Differences in Intelligence (book), Study Guides, Reference Materials for Science, Literature, History & more - eNotes.com Mackintosh, N.J. (January-February 2007). "Book review - Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary hypothesis". Intelligence 35 (1): 94–96. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.08.001.
[15] Palomar college, Homo erectus, Early Human Evolution: Homo ergaster and erectus
[16] Rochester Institute of Technology, The Evolution of Human Intelligence: Increasing Importance of Domain-Specific Intelligence in the Modern Environment, The Evolution of Human Intelligence
[17] Craig, William Lane, On Guard, 2010, David Cook, Colorado Springs, CO, p. 143
[18] True Origin, Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust, - Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust - original source: Hitler, A., Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941–1944, With an introductory essay on The Mind of Adolf Hitler by H.R. Trevor-Roper, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, p. 116, 1953.
[19] Ibid. (Mein Kamf reference: Clark, Robert, Darwin: Before and After, Grand Rapids International Press, Grand Rapids, MI, 1958., P. 115)
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] February 28th, 1995, in an interview with Nick Pollard., Dr. Richard Dawkins interviewed by Nick Pollard at New College, published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition (vol 18 no. 3) February 28th, 1995, Culturewatch - Exploring the message behind the media
[23] ‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62., http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/archive/index.php/t-5477.html
[24] Majority Rights, "Dawkins sides with the race realists" Dawkins sides with the race realists.
[25] Dawkins, Richard, The Greatest Show on Earth, 2009. p20, http://www.tocorre.com/dat/16/u2/21/f378192.7509.lg.pdf
[26] One Stop English, Your English: Word grammar: though
Your English: Word grammar: though | Onestopenglish
[27] Positive Atheism, Richard Dawkins, "Religion's Misguided Missiles" (September 15, 2001), Positive Atheism's Big List of Richard Dawkins Quotations
(Article revised 04/23/12)
