Feedback AIG: Are Races Proof of Evolution?  By Tim Chaffey, AiG–U.S.

The simplest proof of evolution is accomplished just by looking around us every day at other human beings. How do you explain the variation in human race races among human populations that developed in different parts of the world? You know what I mean. Caucasian, Black, Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern and others. Even among Caucasions [sic], there are variations in skin, hair and eye color among people from different countries. Also, do you consider anybody not Caucasion [sic] not human? If there is no evolution, why don’t all human beings from different parts of the world look the same, and have the same characteristics? Even assuming it all started with Adam and Eve, how did these differences develop as humans spread out across the world, if not explained by evolution and natural selection? I notice that you are not able to personally able to respond to questions. Gee, I wonder why? Probably because you cannot answer, and have no explanation for questions such as these. If you do have an explanation, it must be something absurd.

Many people such as myself, resent apparently uneducated people such as yourselves, creating this imaginary war between evolutionists and creationists, with there being no middle ground. Since God is revealing the truth to us through science, it is obvious that God created the world over a long period of time, through evolution. Anyone with common sense arrives at this conclusion. The Bible is to be interpreted symbolically and figuratively, and not literally. People from biblical times had not yet been exposed to most scientific discoveries. They had an excuse for not having science as part of their world, but you don’t.

I don’t know why you take pride in being such simpletons.

Furthermore, while the wonders of the universe and world all seem to point to the existence of a creator, it still cannot be proven or confirmed as an absolute fact. Nobody can claim to know the absolute truth about the mysteries of the universe. If you do, it is still only your belief, and nothing that can be proven. That is why most people consider religion something that is really a matter of faith.

---

Greetings,

Thank you for taking the time to write to us. However, you could have saved yourself some time if you would have spent a few moments searching our website for the answers to your questions. We have written at length about these issues for many years, and we even have an entire website devoted to the issue of so-called “races” (see onehumanrace.com for more details).

The simplest proof of evolution is accomplished just by looking around us every day at other human beings. How do you explain the variation in human race races among human populations that developed in different parts of the world? You know what I mean. Caucasian, Black, Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern and others.

Are you saying the fact that we see a diversity of human beings from various people groups who can marry and produce more human beings is the simplest proof of evolution? How does the regularly observed phenomenon of people producing other people qualify as an example of evolution? How does human reproduction prove molecules-to-man evolution?

If you really believe that humans evolved from ape-like ancestors, and that human evolution is still ongoing, resulting in the various people groups you mentioned, then I wonder which group you think is more closely related to the apes. Which group has evolved the highest? A century ago, evolutionary textbooks were making some very racist statements. One book proclaimed that there are now “on earth five races … of man, each very different from the other. The first is the Ethiopian or Negro type, originating in Africa … and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians.”¹

Most evolutionists are probably not racists, but the belief in human evolution from ape-like ancestors is essentially a racist philosophy. On the contrary, creationists believe all people—“red, brown, yellow, black, and white, they are precious in His sight” (as I used to sing it)—are created in the image of God. Actually, we all have one pigment called melanin (i.e., the different skin colors are varying shades of brown), and as Ken Ham has said, we really should change the song lyrics of “Jesus Loves the Little Children” to “shades of brown from dark to light, all are precious in His sight.” Thus, from a biblical perspective, there is absolutely no basis for racism, yet racism is perfectly consistent with evolution because some people groups have supposedly evolved further than others. Sadly, some Christians are or have been racist. But that is because they are not thinking and acting biblically. They have been influenced by unbiblical ideas and therefore are inconsistent Christians. The Bible gives no support for racism.

Even among Caucasions [sic], there are variations in skin, hair and eye color among people from different countries. Also, do you consider anybody not Caucasion [sic] not human?

Certainly there are variations in skin shade, eye color, and hair among people from different countries. How does this prove evolution? We were created by God with a tremendous amount of genetic information for variation. Consequently, when a couple has a child, that child will receive 50 percent of the genetic information from the mother and 50 percent from the father. Depending upon the various genetic traits that the parents possess, the child could display a wide variety of human traits and will look different than both parents (but still exhibit similarities to both of them). I should add that the information that determines our skin shade, eye color, and hair makes up a tiny fraction of our genetic code.

The Bible tells us that God “has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). We are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and later, Noah and his wife. There is no biblical warrant for racism. All Homo sapiens, no matter what people group they come from and what distinctive physical characteristics they have, are 100 percent human and made in the image of God.

For more information on the various skin “colors,” please see “How Did Different Skin Colors Come About?”

If there is no evolution, why don’t all human beings from different parts of the world look the same, and have the same characteristics? Even assuming it all started with Adam and Eve, how did these differences develop as humans spread out across the world, if not explained by evolution and natural selection?

Before answering your questions, we need to clarify the slippery word “evolution.” You are using it to simply mean “change.” But evolution, as evolutionists typically use the word and want everyone to believe, involves the change of one kind of creature into a very different kind of creature. So, according to their explanation on how life came about, non-living matter evolved into the first living cell, which over millions of years eventually evolved into the first fish, which over millions of generations produced the first amphibian, later reptiles, later birds and mammals, and finally man. And all this happened by time, chance, and the laws of nature. The changes we see as humans give birth to other humans have nothing to do with this microbe-to-microbiologist evolution belief.

The simple answer to your questions is that God designed humans with an incredible amount of variability within our genes. The Tower of Babel incident in Genesis 11 provides a perfect explanation as to why some traits became predominant among the various people groups around the world. See “Where Did the Human Races Come From?” Our popular book, One Race One Blood, addresses each of these issues in much more detail and shows why all people are part of one race.

I notice that you are not able to personally able to respond to questions. Gee, I wonder why? Probably because you cannot answer, and have no explanation for questions such as these. If you do have an explanation, it must be something absurd.

We do our best to respond to everyone who contacts us via phone or email with legitimate questions and comments. We also feature one response each Friday as our feedback article. You can probably imagine that we receive a great deal of correspondence from both those who love our ministry and from those who do not.

Regarding our answer to the question of the different people groups, if you would have taken a few moments to search our site, then you might have refrained from making such a baseless claim. Searching for the word “race” on our website will yield hundreds of results, and many of those results deal directly with this particular issue by linking to an article on the subject or to one of our many resources that covers it.

According to your statement, our view must be something absurd. Is it really absurd to believe that people come from other people? We’ve never observed humans coming about in another manner. On the other hand, you apparently think it is it wise to believe that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, whose ancestors go all the way back to the first alleged single-cell organism. Consider that at each stage of evolutionary development, our alleged ancestors must have somehow obtained new genetic information (something we have never observed). Furthermore, evolutionists who do not believe in God must believe life came from non-life, information from non-information, and intelligence from non-intelligence. The evolutionary explanation is unscientific and illogical, but the biblical worldview is consistent with operational science.

Many people such as myself, resent apparently uneducated people such as yourselves, creating this imaginary war between evolutionists and creationists, with there being no middle ground.

You’re entitled to your opinion about us, but you should refrain from question-begging epithets. For the record, Answers in Genesis employs several scientists with earned doctorates from respected secular universities as well as researchers with advanced degrees (Masters or higher) in medicine, engineering, biology, theology, church history, etc.

Evolution was developed as an attempt to explain life on this planet without God, but the Bible plainly tells us that God created everything in six normal-length days about 6,000 years ago. A person can propose a “middle ground” position—that God used evolution—but this position denies what God has plainly said in His Word. For example, the Bible tells us that the first man was made from the dust of the ground, and that the first woman was made from his rib. They did not evolve from ape-like ancestors over millions of years. Further, God revealed in Genesis 1 that He created different kinds of plants and animals to reproduce “after their kind.”

Also, many evolutionary scientists do not believe that the conflict between evolution and the Bible is an imaginary war. Think about the amount of time, energy, and money expended against creationists by Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, and others, as well as by secular scientific organizations and journals. They recognize the existence of a real battle, and they know that biblical creationists are on the opposing side. But why do the evolutionists have to constantly resort to lawsuits to protect their theory, if it is scientifically true? Why can’t it stand on its own on the battlefield of ideas?

Since God is revealing the truth to us through science, it is obvious that God created the world over a long period of time, through evolution.

How do you know that “God is revealing the truth to us through science”? Did He tell you that? Does the Bible tell us that? So what happens when scientific consensus changes, as it often does? Would that mean that God changed His mind or that He was wrong before?

If a creationist were to make the statement that “God created the world over a long period of time through evolution,” this person would be mocked by evolutionists. They would say that evolution has to do with the development of life on earth and nothing to do with the origin of the planet. However, I know what you meant, and the evolutionists often do lump the big bang in with evolution when explaining it at the popular level. For example, one popular evolutionary website described this “impressive hierarchy” of evolution:

• The evolution of primal energy into elementary particles and atoms.
• The evolution of those atoms into galaxies and stars.
• The evolution of stars into heavy elements.
• The evolution of those elements into the molecular building blocks of life.
• The evolution of those molecules into life itself.
• The evolution of advanced life forms into intelligence.
• The evolution of intelligent life into a cultured and technological civilization.²

God has revealed the truth to us in His Word (special revelation) about how long it took Him to create everything. “For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:11). So why would He reveal something contradictory in nature (general revelation)? Are you claiming that the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2) has lied or contradicted Himself? He has not lied in either special or general revelation. Because many scientists hold the wrong worldview, they make flawed interpretations of general revelation, and these interpretations are contrary to the Word of God.

Anyone with common sense arrives at this conclusion.

This is another question-begging epithet. What you call “common sense” is better described as “conventional wisdom.” Using common sense would not lead a person to believe that we evolved from ape-like ancestors, because this is irrational. But conventional wisdom is often wrong and illogical. Truth is not determined by majority opinion. What we really need is critical thinking that deals honestly with the facts and the opposing viewpoints, distinguishing between assumptions, facts, and interpretations of facts. If one strives to use common sense, then he should stop using logical fallacies, which sadly evolutionists commit on a regular basis when defending their theory.

The Bible is to be interpreted symbolically and figuratively, and not literally.

Each section of Scripture should be interpreted according to the various principles for that particular genre. Some parts of Scripture should be interpreted symbolically and figuratively, but even then the passage is conveying a specific truth, while using symbolic or apocalyptic language. This is typically done in apocalyptic literature and poetry, respectively. However, historical narrative (like almost all of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Matthew, Acts, etc.) should be interpreted in a straightforward manner. If it is written as history, which it was, then it should be understood that way.

People from biblical times had not yet been exposed to most scientific discoveries. They had an excuse for not having science as part of their world, but you don’t.

It’s true that we have the benefit of more scientific discoveries, but it isn’t true that people in biblical times didn’t have it as part of their world. This is a form of the chronological snobbery fallacy. You’re claiming that modern views about the world are better than ancient views because we have better science. Moreover, you are arrogantly belittling the knowledge and technology of the ancient Greeks, Chinese, Incas, Egyptians, etc. who had amazing knowledge of the heavens, medicine, ship-building, navigation, and embalming, and they also built pyramids, fortresses on steep mountainsides, aqueducts, and incredible art and architecture. In some cases it is true that our understanding is more accurate than our ancestors, but this is not always the case. Truth is not determined by the age of an idea, nor by popular scientific consensus. If an idea is contrary to the Word of God, then it is false. As such, every truth claim (whether ancient or modern) must be examined in light of Scripture.

I don’t know why you take pride in being such simpletons.

This is another question-begging epithet. Hopefully, we aren’t taking pride in anything to do with ourselves. As Christians, we need to humble ourselves and tremble at God’s Word (Isaiah 66:1–2). And, if we boast at all, it should be about our Lord and His Cross by which we have received the forgiveness of our sins (Galatians 6:14). We should follow the example of John the Baptist when he said about Jesus, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30).

Furthermore, while the wonders of the universe and world all seem to point to the existence of a creator, it still cannot be proven or confirmed as an absolute fact.

The wonders of the universe do “point” to the Creator. Psalm 19:1 states, “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.” And God said His creation witnesses so clearly to His existence and nature that we are without excuse for suppressing this witness by our sin (Romans 1:18–20).

If there were no Creator, then we could not have this discussion. If atheism were true, and we were simply the result of random processes, then we could only say and do what the chance random chemical reactions in our bodies have caused us to do. Immaterial things, such as laws of logic and thoughts, would not exist, or if we did have thoughts, we could not trust them to accurately reflect reality or arrive at truth. Simply put, the fact that we do have rational discussions proves atheism is false and that the Creator exists.

Nobody can claim to know the absolute truth about the mysteries of the universe.

If you are claiming that no one can possess sure knowledge “about the mysteries of the universe,” then that is a contradiction. However, if you are referring to the complete knowledge, then that is certainly true of man—although the eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful God can claim (and does know) “the absolute truth about the mysteries of the universe.” He has told us in His Word that He created everything in six days about 6,000 years ago. I’ll take His Word for it.

If you do, it is still only your belief, and nothing that can be proven.

It certainly is our belief, and a six-day creation cannot be proven according to the scientific method. It cannot be repeated, observed, or tested. The same is true with the big bang and evolution. We’ve made that point before; both creation and evolution are part of belief systems (biblical Christianity and naturalism, respectively) and are outside the realm of observational (operational) science. This is not a science vs. faith battle; it’s belief system vs. belief system. It’s worldview vs. worldview.

We aren’t afraid to admit that we have a belief system. The fact of the matter is that everyone has a belief system. Most evolutionists, however, try to deny it and claim that they are unbiased, objective pursuers of truth. They are only deceiving themselves and others. Hebrews 11:6 states, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Also, faith doesn’t mean that we believe something for which we have no evidence. Quite the contrary is true. The first disciples believed because they saw, heard, and touched the risen Jesus Christ (John 20:19–31), and there are many good reasons to believe their written testimony in the New Testament, including the miracles which God did through them (Hebrews 2:3–4).

That is why most people consider religion something that is really a matter of faith.

I’m happy to state that trusting in Christ is a matter of faith. But again, this is not a “blind faith” in the sense that we don’t have any good reasons for that belief. However, you must realize that evolution is a matter of belief and trust, often held with strong convictions too. It takes a lot of effort to believe that time and chance and the laws of nature can change non-living matter into a living cell and cause one kind of creature to change into a different kind, even though none of these things have ever been observed. Evolution is not based on operational science but depends upon the findings of fallen men who observe the present and make educated guesses about the past. The process of molecules-to-man has never been observed, so one must believe that it happened, despite its numerous fatal problems.

I would encourage you to read the Bible if you want to know the true history of the universe and the God who made you. God has told us how and when He created the universe and why He did it. He was there, knows all things, and cannot lie, so we should trust Him.

The Bible also accurately describes humanity’s true condition. We are sinful and rebellious against our Creator, and we need to be forgiven of that rebellion. Thankfully, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). If you have not already done so, you need to turn from your sins (repent) and believe on the Lord Jesus (Acts 16:31) or you will be judged by Him and suffer God’s wrath for eternity. This is not an empty threat from the Lord, but a warning to repent of your sin before it’s too late.

Sincerely,
Tim Chaffey, AiG–U.S.