In spite of the battle cry of atheists all over the globe, there is plenty of evidence not only that God exists, but that He has been in direct communication with mankind since the day He created us. Many Bible-based predictions turn out to be true, and I don't just mean in the prophetic sense. Though the Bible is not a science book, and thus is not designed to explain the natural world on an advanced level, it nevertheless addresses many real world topics. This includes the general nature of man, biologically, psychologically, and spiritually.
These descriptions, while frequently challenged by the secular world, have not only stood the test of time, but have been more strongly confirmed as we study the world around us. According to the Bible, mankind was created in the image of God, initially beginning with only two individuals: A man, named Adam, and Eve, his wife. At first, they were perfect in every conceivable way, but were given a simple command: You may eat from any tree, except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The consequences for breaking this command, which they ultimately did, is death (Genesis 1-3).
The sin that brought death to Adam likewise brought death to all of his descendants, because all sinned (Romans 5:12-14). Yet, God is just, and so He does not directly punish one person for the sins of another. Rather, He has decreed "“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin." (Deuteronomy 24:16).
It is possible that unbelievers might interject here. While God has commanded that each person must die for their own sin, there are plenty of examples in Scripture - even within the famous decalogue - where God appears to contradict this. As we read in Exodus 20:4-6, for example, "“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (Emphasis mine).
To understand this, we need to recognise that there are two different principles at play here. It's helpful that the context of the second commandment is idolatry, because it provides the easiest illustration from the modern world. In the world today, there are hundreds of religions, each with their own weird and wonderful beliefs. But we notice there is a specific trend among them. When two people, sharing a religion, produce a child, they tend to raise that child in their religious traditions. A Muslim couple will raise Muslim children. A Hindu couple will raise Hindu children. A Roman Catholic couple will raise Roman Catholic children. What your parents are, that is what you are likely to be. Thus, if your parents are idolators, you will likely also be an idolator. Therefore, the iniquity of your ancestors is visited upon you if, and because, you visit their iniquity upon yourself.
However, because God is just, and does not punish offspring for parents (or vice versa), these "generational curses" can be broken. If God shows mercy to thousands, to those who love Him and keep His commandments, then the sins of their relatives are irrelevant. Even if you are the second, third, or fourth generation from one who hates God, He will show you mercy if you love Him. Thus, there is no contradiction here.
As you can see from this brief exposition, the Bible has a lot to say about the nature of man. Physically, while we do vary superficially, we are all one race. Psychologically, we are tribal, yet individual. We cannot be held accountable for the sins of others, no matter how close we are to them, though direct proximity may result in a shared mindset. Spiritually, we are at war with God, but not irredeemably. But the world tells us some very different stories.
Evolution
Although the concept of Evolution is nothing new, much like any other religion, it has developed dramatically in recent years. Specifically, Evolutionists have discovered how to both circumvent laws against imposing religion (such as the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution), and how to make their religion more palatable even to those whose religion is in direct conflict with it. It's surprisingly simple: Pass it off as science, while concealing, and even denying, its religious elements. Ultimately, whether Evolutionists admit it or not, Evolution is a religion. In fact, as Evolutionist Michael Ruse did admit, Evolution is "...a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. (...) This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today." (1).
The moral aspect of Evolution is actually quite strange. Most religions present a source for morality. A moral legislature, if you like. Evolution, by contrast, is all but explicitly designed to erase that source. The problem is, if you take that moral legislature away, you are left with total anarchy, at least on a spiritual level. There are no atheistic systems by which morality can be reached. Thus, if Evolution is true, mankind has the right, but not necessarily mandate, to act like it. You can even act like a gorilla if you want to, but as you are not a gorilla, you don't necessarily have to, and probably aren't motivated to.
But what does motivate you? The answer to this question will vary from person to person, most of whom won't even think about it. It is this almost complete absence of thought that causes most people, for better or for worse, to be hypocrites. But I would argue, in the case of Evolution, this hypocrisy is absolutely for the better.
When we ask "what motivates you?", I dare say the vast majority of modern Westerners would answer with a degree of compassion. But there may also be a degree of "progress", and that is an ambiguous term indeed. It simply means an onward movement to a particular point. If you wanted to go to London, for example, you make progress by moving closer towards London, and you stop progressing when you reach London.
You see, then, that progress requires a goal. An end point. A final destination. Such things do not exist in Evolution. Mankind is not the pinnacle of Evolution, it's just where we happen to be right now. Evolution doesn't even stop with us. We have come so far, but we can go further. But who decides what "further" is? With no God in the picture, this is left to the individual human being. How do we decide who is right? It's simple: Gun beats spear.
Many readers may recognise this as a racial slur, and unfortunately, it is. On an objective level, of course, it's just true. A man with a gun vs. a man with a spear is not a fair fight, no matter who holds which weapon. Thus, one way or another, whichever culture developed the gun first had an unfair advantage over the others, militarily speaking. But aside from being used as a statement of fact, "gun beats spear" is also a way of saying "we're more advanced than everyone else, therefore we should dominate them".
And the Evolutionists did.
It is a matter of historical fact that the modern iteration of Evolution was both invented, and developed, by white supremacists. And, like some sick minded, self-fulfilling prophecy, the Evolution that was developed by white supremacy ended up developing more white supremacy. As Stephen Jay Gould, widely regarded as history's most honest Evolutionist, pointed out: "Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory. The litany is familiar: cold, dispassionate, objective, modern science shows us that races can be ranked on a scale of superiority. If this offends Christian morality or a sentimental belief in human unity, so be it; science must be free to proclaim unpleasant truths." (2). (Emphasis mine).
One of those supposedly unpleasant "truths", as dictated by a commonly used biology textbook up until the Scopes trial in 1925, is that "At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." (3).
Note that term, "the highest type of all". Again, objectively, one can only "progress" with a goal in mind, but if that goal is, for example, "mental development", then according to early Evolutionists, the Caucasians win hands down. By contrast, "At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes." (4).
These detestable words come from a man named Ernst Haeckel, known for two things: His fraudulent embryonic drawings, and his advancement of Evolution in Germany. With the nickname "Darwin's Bulldog", Ernst Haeckel was such a firm defender of Evolution that he would scoff at the "dogmatism" of anthropologists who disagreed.
It is perhaps one of history's greatest ironies that in his opposition to Scripture, he also reversed one of the most common criticisms of it from the modern world. Today, we deal with claims that Scripture is too racist (more on that later), but to Haeckel, it just wasn't racist enough! He writes "Since Blumenbach’s time, as is well known, it has been thought that mankind may be divided into five races or varieties, namely: (1) the Ethiopian, or black race (African negro); (2) the Malayan, or brown race (Malays, Polynesians, and Australians); (3) the Mongolian, or yellow race (the principal inhabitants of Asia and the Esquimaux of North America); (4) the Americans, or red race (the aborigines of America); and (5) the Caucasian, or white race (Europeans, north Africans, and south-western Asiatics). All of these five races of men, according to the Jewish legend of creation, are said to have been descended from “a single pair”—Adam and Eve,—and in accordance with this are said to be varieties of one kind or species. If, however, we compare them without prejudice, there can be no doubt that the differences of these five races are as great and even greater than the “specific differences” by which zoologists and botanists distinguish recognised “good” animal and vegetable species (“bonæ species”). The excellent palæontologist Quenstedt is right in maintaining that, “if Negroes and Caucasians were snails, zoologists would universally agree that they represented two very excellent species, which could never have originated from one pair by gradual divergence.”" (5).
Notice that Haeckel holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis (as did virtually everyone in his time), and vehemently opposes its truth. In his mind, it is impossible for the 5 races, in which he and his fellow Evolutionists believed, to have descended from Adam and Eve. Because of his aversion to the Biblical view of origins, Haeckel would frequently criticise Creationists in particular. One of these Creationists was Albrecht Haller. Concerning him, Haeckel wrote "He thus denied that there was any evolution in the proper sense of the word, and even went so far as to say that the beard existed in the new-born child and the antlers in the hornless fawn; all the parts were there in advance, and were merely hidden from the eye of man for the time being. Haller even calculated the number of human beings that God must have created on the sixth day and stored away in Eve's ovary. He put the number at 200,000 millions, assuming the age of the world to be 6000 years, the average age of a human being to be thirty years, and the population of the world at that time to be 1000 millions. And the famous Haller maintained all this nonsense, in spite of its ridiculous consequences, even after Wolff had discovered the real course of embryonic development and established it by direct observation!" (6).
There are two things to note here. First, because of his fraudulent activity, which was widely known even in his day, Ernst Haeckel is the absolute least reliable source on embryology. That's not necessarily relevant to the topic of this article, but I thought it would be useful to know this detail about the racist who thrust Evolution into German culture, just in time for a megalomaniac to take power. It is also worth noting that this fraud often resurfaces in modern classrooms in various forms. In other words, for well over a century, children have been regularly brainwashed into accepting Evolution, which is one key reason it remains so prominent in our culture today.
But second, and more relevant to this article, note how much closer Haller, based on his Biblical worldview, got to the truth. While Haeckel scoffed at this "nonsense", Haller's view is only a stone's throw away from what we now know to be the case. The features of adults - be it the beard on a man, or the antlers on a deer - are indeed "hidden from the eye of man" in the genetics of the organism, present from the moment of conception! In other words, the Creationist prediction missed the mark by inches, whereas the Evolutionist prediction didn't even hit the board. How is it Evolutionists are always bragging about the predictive power of Evolution again?
In the modern day, we not only know that Haller was almost right (and Haeckel was embarrassingly wrong), but that Scripture was exactly right. We have fully sequenced the entire human genome, and when the Human Genome Project announced this in the year 2,000, they "...unanimously declared, there is only one race - the human race." (7).
It's interesting to note that modern genetics also seems to vindicate our single origin. While they of course have their own little spin on it, Evolutionists today recognise two genetic ancestors of humanity: Y Chromosome Adam, and Mitochondrial Eve. In brief, the Y chromosome is only passed down by the father, and mitochondrial DNA is passed down only by the mother. When we study these, we find that every ethnic group is descended from a single pair of human beings. The more we study science, the closer we come to the Biblical view of human origins.
Critical Race Dogma
In the previous segment, we saw that Scripture teaches the biological unity of humanity. We have superficial differences, like skin shade, but ultimately, we are one race, descended from one couple. By contrast, the world teaches that we are descended from apes, and that some of us, especially those of African descent, are closer to those apes than others. Conveniently, as the modern Evolutionary religion was developed by white supremacists, the white man was considered to be the highest of the human races, whereas black people were considered the lowest. The result was a sick cycle of self fulfilment. As white supremacy influenced Evolution, Evolution influenced white supremacy. Darwin himself went as far as to say "At some future period the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (8).
I hope we can all agree that this is all complete and utter... Well, I want Bible Brain to be a family friendly site, so we'll just say there is something horrendously wrong with you if you believe any "race" is superior to another. But I'm no longer talking about just white supremacists.
It would be fantastic if racism as a whole would just die. It doesn't belong in our world, it belongs back in the demonic butthole that crapped it out in the first place. But there are some people in our world who believe the answer to racism is more racism.
This can be seen in the relatively recent development of what is commonly called Critical Race "Theory" (CRT). As I pointed out in a previous article on the topic, CRT is undeserving of classification as a theory, and thus I only use the term once per article (for sake of clarifying what I'm talking about). My preferred term is Critical Race Dogma (CRD), because it is a firmly held belief with no realistic basis.
CRD, being primarily rooted in Marxism, is based on the premise of class struggle. Specifically, it teaches that humanity can be divided into two main classes: Oppressor, and oppressed. In spite of the name, CRD does not focus exclusively on race. Rather, it teaches that a person cannot be adequately defined by just one of the groups they identify with. A person can identify with their "race", their religion, their gender, and their sexual orientation. This concept, known as "intersectionality", is a basic tenet of CRD, and it means it is actually possible to be a member of both oppressor and oppressed classes simultaneously.
The obvious result of this is that people are not judged as individuals, but by their membership of these classes. That is, rather than being judged on the contents of one's character, each of us is judged by the sins of long dead people. Even the weight of a person's words are affected by this, as a key tenet of CRD is what's called "voice of color". This is the belief that "people of color" are uniquely qualified to speak out on the issue of racism. This, however, is based on perception, and not on reality. It even incorporates an Orwellian concept called "Microaggressions", which are subtle behaviors that supposedly communicate some racist mindset or other.
A commonly cited example is a conversation between a professor and her colleagues. A black student was walking nearby, and the professor suggested she should have locked her office door, because she left her purse in there. Was this racist? Objectively, we don't have enough facts to know. Even if we assume it was the presence of the student that caused the professor to wish she'd locked her purse in her office, it isn't necessarily their skin color that prompted this response. Regardless of the melanin content of their skin, people steal. That's why locks exist in the first place. But because the black student felt this was a microaggression, this is considered racist.
The irony is, this ideology that speaks so often about inherent racism is inherently racist. To prove this, simply replace the race in any given statement. Is "white pride" racist? Then so is "black pride". Is it racist to want white people to have their own segregated spaces? Then it's racist to want black people to have their own segregated spaces. Is it racist to complain when you see "too many black people" working in a certain place? Then it's racist to complain when you see too many white people working in a certain place. Is it racist to celebrate blacks becoming a minority in a historically black majority country? Then it's racist to celebrate whites becoming a minority in a historically white majority country. Is it racist to denounce the phrase "it's ok to be black"? Then it's racist to denounce the phrase "it's ok to be white". I could go on, and it really is that simple: Whatever would be racist if it was said about one race is racist when it's said about another. It's just that CRD generally says racist things about white people.
CRD, therefore, is just one more racist ideology, presented as an answer to racism. It seeks to sow division between the groups it creates. The result is that rather than solving the problem of racism, it adds to it. Aside from being inherently racist, it ends up creating more racist mindsets.
The irony is it creates racism against one's own race! If you're white, and you accept CRD, you may not only feel remorse for crimes you never committed, but also hate members of your own ethnic group for the same crimes, which they also never committed. Similarly, black people will feel a sense of inferiority in a system that isn't actually rigged against them, and turn on their fellow blacks, accusing them of being "Uncle Toms", and in some cases even refuse to accept their identity as black people. Joe Biden, for example, while he is not himself black, asserted that Trump voters are not are not black.
Biden is actually a fantastic example of one of the worst effects of CRD: What I call the "white savior complex". See, the irony of CRD is it causes white people who believe in it to look down on black people as needing their help. An analogy for you: You're in a race, and you decide to slow down so your opponents can catch up. What is the assumption there? That you are the superior runner! It doesn't matter if it's actually true, but if you're slowing down with that intention, clearly you believe your opponents couldn't win if you didn't. And of course either way it cheapens the victory. If they won because you slowed down, they didn't really win. Even if they could beat you legitimately, the fact that they didn't leaves that particular question unanswered. In the same way, when white proponents of CRD advocate measures to give black people an advantage, what they're actually saying is "we whites are superior to you, so we're going to help you out". CRD, therefore, is racist on almost every level.
The issue of slavery
You see, then, how these two prominent, Earthly worldviews only serve to increase racism. In Evolution, people are ranked on an Evolutionary scale, according to how "savage" or "civilised" we are. In CRD, people who may not even share an ancestral line with certain sinners are judged by those sins. Both of these attitudes are disgraceful, and add fuel to what was otherwise a dying fire.
But is Christianity truly the answer? Many modern skeptics argue that the Bible is also a racist book. It has even been suggested that Christianity is a "white man's religion", and of course Christians are considered an "oppressor" class in CRD.
A key evidence against this idea is its youth. For 2,000 years, no one thought of Scripture as a racist document. Ironically, even during the darkest period of American history, slave owners would not allow their slaves access to a real Bible. While Abolitionists, such as William Wilberforce, used Scripture to justify the Abolition movement, pro-slavers actually produced a Bible entitled "Parts of the Holy Bible, selected for the use of the Negro Slaves, in the British West-India Islands", known today as "the Slave Bible" (9).
The Slave Bible omits the vast majority of the Old Testament, and a good portion of the New. While the story of Joseph being taken to Egypt as a slave remains, Moses bringing the Jews out of slavery is, of course, gone. So are any Biblical references to cruel masters being punished, or kidnappers spending eternity in Hellfire. Only the convenient, "pro-slavery" verses are left in, such as the famous 1 Peter 2:18, which, in the NKJV, reads "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh."
But this naturally leads to the question of why those verses exist in the first place? The "simple" answer is that God is a realist. To create the world He wants, He starts with the world He has.
Hearing skeptics talk about this issue, one would think there was a time in human history where slavery never occurred, then some dude named Moses showed up, and suddenly the Jews just started slapping chains on everyone with a different skin tone. In reality, slavery has been a part of human society for as long as there has been human society.
At this point, I should point out that we're actually deviating from the topic here, because slavery and racism are different things. Almost all cultures have a history of slavery, but usually, the slaves were members of their own race. Thus, in theory, you could even be anti-racist, but pro-slavery. But I would argue that God is very much anti-slavery.
As I said, God starts with the world He has. We see this most clearly in the issue of divorce. God makes His position on this issue very clear: "“For the Lord God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the Lord of hosts. “Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously.”" (Malachi 2:16). That is, and has always been, the position of the Almighty with regard to divorce.
When questioned on divorce, Jesus gave a similar answer, pointing out that marriage is based on God's design with Adam and Eve. From the beginning of creation, marriage has been a Holy institution, designed to be enjoyed by one man, and one woman, for life. But there's a question here, and one the Jews asked of Jesus: "...Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" (Matthew 19:7). Jesus replied "...Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Matthew 19:8).
From this, we see that God is willing to tolerate a certain level of rebellion from us. Indeed, He would have to. The wages of sin is death, so if God didn't give us some threshold, we'd be extinct already.
But then why doesn't the New Testament effectively ban slavery, as it does divorce? Of course, I would argue that even the Old Testament bans what most people think of when we hear "slavery". Kidnapping has always been punishable by death, and kidnappers are listed as those who will burn in Hell. So where do you even get a slave? Biblically, it's just not possible unless they volunteer.
But there is a certain twist in the New Testament. The Old Testament focused primarily on national Israel, but the New Testament is the bigger picture. Rather than being a legal document for one nation, the Gospel is designed to go to all nations, regardless of what system of government they have. But that includes nations with the absolute worst laws on slavery.
So, what if a slave receives the Gospel? Paul's advice to them is "Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ’s slave." (1 Corinthians 7:21). Being a slave does not make you inferior in the Kingdom of God. Christians are all treated equally by God.
The Gospel
The logical implication of this is that we are treated equally by each other. And of course, now I'm no longer talking just about slavery. Biblically speaking, we are created in the image of the God who detests partiality. He loves us all equally, so much so that even while we were sinners, Christ died for us. See, the wages of sin is death, and all of us sin a lot. That includes racism. The solution? "...He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (2 Corinthians 5:21).
This is known as "penal substitutionary atonement". That is, you did the crime, but Jesus served the time, so that all who confess Him as the risen Lord will receive His reward. This is not, however, a "get out of jail free" card. Just as Evolution and CRD, when taken seriously, produce certain changes, so also does the Gospel. The more seriously you take a racist ideology, the more racist you become, but the more seriously you take the Gospel, the more you become like Jesus.
Jesus, of course, was not a racist. In fact, He never sinned at all. And that's a goal. It's not one we'll ever succeed in on this Earth, which is why He had to die for us, but it's the final reward for our faith in Him. One which is given to us in part now. If we really want to solve the problem of racism, therefore, the solution isn't to look at our fellow man as fellow apes, and it certainly isn't to look at each other as oppressors and oppressed. It's to look past our superficial differences and see the image of God in each other, seeking to bring it out. Our hatred of our fellow man springs primarily from our hatred of God, but there is reconciliation available through the blood of Christ.
References
1. Ruse, Michael - How Evolution became a religion: Creationists correct?, National Post, May 13th, 2000
2. Gould, Stephen J. - Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, 1977
3. Hunter, George W. - A Civic Biology, 1914
4. Haeckel, Ernst - The History of Creation, 1880 (link)
5. Ibid.
6. Haeckel, Ernst - The Evolution of Man, volume 1 (link)
7. Angier, Natalie - Do Races Differ? Not really, genes show, New York Times, August 22nd 2000 (link)
8. Darwin, Charles - The Descent of Man, 1871
9. Little, Becky - Why Bibles Given to Slaves Omitted Most of the Old Testament, HISTORY, December 11th 2018 (link)
Comments