Wednesday, October 17, 2007


"There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."1
These words were spoken recently by the pioneer of DNA studies, Prof. Jim Watson, and they are the reason that I hate the theory and doctrine of Evolution. Instead of pointing to inequities in educational opportunities and the institions that I believe inhibit social, cultural, and moral progress (like govt. programs that reward bad behavior), these so-called scientists teach what justifies racist thought. These men are experts in science, but with such statements that we read above, they venture to say what is not provable. And it is interesting that James Watson has stirred the fury of his colleagues for suggesting a conclusion that evolutionist from Darwin on down have always believed and taught. They have always taught that the African and European caveman took different tracks in the evolution process. And they teach that the modern African is less evolved, thus less intelligent, than their european cousins. Evolutionary biology proposes many ridiculous things to explain why men are prone to have many sexual partners to saying things like some people are prone to being fat because of a latent gene that was necessary when man had to go longer periods of time without food.2 Ridiculous and disgusting. And please don't tell me that God created evolution. Theistic Evolution is a vein attempt to have your cake and eat it too. If you believe in God, then believe in His Word that says He created everything in 6 days. The greatest miracle in the Bible is the victory of Jesus Christ over the grave and over the power of sin. I reject macro-evolution theory that says that man evolved from from the simplest lifeforms, which themselves evolved from dead, inanimate matter. And I believe that all men, black or white, are children of the first man, each having the same potential. The black man is not genetically inferior in intelligence.

UPDATE: Oct 19, 2007
Today, the DNA pioneer is retracting his statements that were inferred to suggest that blacks are inferior to whites. He said, "That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." No scientific basis for what? He says he did not mean to imply that the African continent as a whole was genetically inferior. He just can't understand how he could be misunderstood. So does he believe there is a "scientific basis" for believing that Africans individually are inferior? I just wonder what he means by his equivocation. But his colleagues, who are willing to attribute so many moral and ethical lapses of man to genetics, are not willing to accept the conclusions of their teacher. He is the expert in DNA and genetics! One has to wonder how scientific all of this is. And this all seems to be less about science and more about politics and culture. In the past, the Professor was also shot down for suggesting that mothers should be able to abort their child if it was determined they were carrying a homosexual child. These people, these godless liberals, cannot keep things straight. Mothers can abort for anything unless they believe the nonsense that their child is homosexual. This is not science. It is new age moralism at work. Professor Watson was silenced for doing what geneticists do all the time.

1. Fury
2. See also Implications of Evolution


  1. Deeper issues are at stake in the "evolution v creationism" so-called debate:

    "[T]he alternative 'evolution or creationism' is too simplistic", that what is really at stake "behind the debate about creation and evolution" is "the great question, decisive for our future, of basic ethical guidelines capable of underpinning a high-technology civilization and its capabilities, which threaten our very existence. It is a matter of whether science can be combined with a sustainable responsibility for creation. For science, understood correctly, is a practical application of the first divine commandment to men: 'Subdue the earth.'" —Christoph Cardinal Schönborn in Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith (2007)

    "Without the Creator, the creature disappears." — John Paul II Veritatis Splendor (1993)

    This is the radical evolutionist goal, I'm sure you would agree: man without any limits, no?

  2. Hi P.
    I agree and it is a dangerous place our world is heading. Evolution theory is about explaining origins without God. If everything is an accident, a matter of chance events given enough time, then man gets to decide for himself what is the meaning of life and what is valuable. Abortion, Euthenasia, creation of chimeras, new "family" models, and numerous other things are related to the godless view of life. The truth of God must first be disposed of for these things to take hold.



To email Dan Mayfield: Click Here