A fact for which the world can joyously thank God for is that the racism of 19th-20th century Evolution has all but stayed in the past. To be sure, Evolution is still a racist religion, but it is very rare to see a modern Evolutionist claim that black people are inferior to Caucasians. But regardless of its walking back of its vocally racist ways, Evolution's racist implications simply cannot be avoided.
A classic example of Evolution's racist history occurred at the opening of the 20th century, when Ota Benga (pictured above, right), a Congolese Pygmy, was displayed in the Bronx Zoological Gardens. His "owner", Director Hornaday, held to the classical Evolutionary view of the "hierarchy of races", in which 5 distinct human races are believed to ascend in a ladder, "Negroes" being the lowest, and of course Caucasians being the highest (1). Hornaday, like many at his time, saw Ota Benga as little more than an animal, and thus he was displayed as an example of an "evolutionarily inferior race".
The harsh treatment Ota Benga suffered lead him to violently defend himself. He stole and brandished a knife, he crafted a bow to fire at the guests, and at one time all he wanted was a soda, and got so aggressive when it was refused that three men had to drag him back to the monkey cage. Eventually, his behaviour lead him to be expelled from the zoo, and eventually, he found employment at a tobacco factory. But all he really wanted was to go home. Eventually, he concluded that this just wasn't going to happen, and in 1916, he shot himself in the chest.
Ota Benga's story is tragic, and thankfully, it is not likely to be repeated in the modern era. But the whole thing brings up a lot of questions. Was Director Hornaday wrong? Is there a moral difference between keeping Ota Benga captive and keeping a gorilla captive? If so, why? If not, why not?
As a Christian, I can categorically say that everything that was done to Ota Benga, from the day the Belgian government slaughtered his tribe to the last slanderous remark Hornaday made about him after his death, is an outrageous scandal. In the Bible, the very concept of different races, and certainly inferior races, is completely alien. Kinapping, at least in the Old Testament, was punishable by death (Exodus 21:16), and is still a sin worthy of Hell in the New Testament (1 Timothy 1:8-11). The equality of all human beings before God is indisputable, and any Biblically educated Christian could tell you that Ota Benga, far from being a close relative of apes, was very much loved by the God who would have absolutely loved to grant him eternal life (and I have heard, though cannot confirm, that He actually did). Mankind, including Ota Benga, was given dominion over the whole earth, meaning we have the right to captivate animals. We do not have that right over our fellow man.
But can an Evolutionist say likewise? Of course not! It is Evolution that caused this poor man to be displayed as an "Evolutionarily inferior race" in the first place! Evolution does distinguish between races, and it does allow for racism, even to the point of genocide. As Evolutionists frequently point out, Evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive, which ultimately means if Evolution were true, there would be nothing to tell us how we are and are not permitted to use that knowledge. If we want to prevent our "worst" animals from breeding, as Darwin put it (2), we can. If we want to wipe out the "lesser races", as Darwin predicted would happen, why not? You see, then, that when an Evolutionist opposes racism, he is being inconsistent with his professed worldview. Only Christianity can consistently account for a world in which it is morally acceptable to keep animals in captivity, but it is evil to do the same to humans.
References
1. Hunter, George - A Civic Biology, 1914
2. Darwin, Charles - The Descent of Man, 1871