Is Creationism racist?

Henry Morris’s “scientific creationism” taught that red, black, and yellow races were descended from Ham, and destined to serve the Europeans and Semites descended from Japhet and Shem. Evolution science, with the help of genetics, wrote in 1977 that “race” applied to humans is a hopelessly blurred concept, that Europeans, Middle Easterners and East Asians are more closely related to each other than to Africans, that the greatest human genetic diversity is within Africa, and that human group differences are trivial compared with individual variation.

Which do you prefer?

I reblog here some comments by my friend the Rev. Michael Roberts on this subject, linking to the original discussion here by Libby Anne:

Peddling and Scaling God and Darwin

That should get tongues wagging. Most creationists will deny that and Ham of Answers in Genesis tries to blame evolutionists for racism.

I have no idea what the quote from Revelation means but then fundamentalists use the Bible is odd ways

This article deals with some of Henry Morris’s comments on race, with the sons of Ham being born to serve! (This comes from Genesis 9 where Ham found Noah drunk after the flood. and was cursed Gen 9 vs25. Bad old anthropology had the “sons of Ham” who were to serve. This was used to justify Apartheid among other things as the sons of Ham were Africans)

Image result for sons of ham

This attitude is typical of the whites in the Southern States and was held by some Southern Presbyterians at the time of the civil war.

However, here we see the founder father of modern creationism being overtly racist. I didn’t realise that…

View original post 78 more words

About Paul Braterman

Science writer, former chemistry professor; committee member British Centre for Science Education; board member and science adviser Scottish Secular Society; former member editorial board, Origins of Life, and associate, NASA Astrobiology Insitute; first popsci book, From Stars to Stalagmites 2012

Posted on August 18, 2018, in Creationism, Evolution, Humans and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. It’s worth noting that many traditional versions of creationism had whites and blacks as distinct and separate creations, and thus were explicitly racist.

    Some Biblical creationists were monogenist, holding that all races (black, white, etc), were descended from Adam and Eve. Others were polygenist, holding that the Genesis account referred only to the Whites, and that blacks and other races were separate peoples. (After all, who did Cain marry? Why did he need to the “mark of Cain” to protect him if there were no other peoples? How could he live in a city if there were only descendants of Adam and Eve?)

    It was Darwinism that was the first to unambiguously state that all humans descended from a common ancestor.

    The Nazi ideologues held to the creationist, polygenist idea, in which other races (Jews, blacks, slavs, etc) were distinct “untermensch” in the sense of being literally separate creations.


    • Can you justify that bit about “separate creations”? I thought it was more like “separate species”


      • There’s no question that the Great Chain of Being, while originating in Aristotle, is inherently racist. The classical idea grafts perfectly onto Christian ideology about creation–orderly, static, hierarchical. In the same way that worms are “lower” animals than lions on the chain, so, too anyone non-white was “lower” than the whites. socioeconomic class structure, racism, speciesism–it all goes back to the Great Chain of Being (or Ladder of Life).

        Darwin and Wallace kicked that right over.

        (I notice I cannot get to my Google account to connect.)


  2. Separate species meant, to a creationist, separate creations. OK, I guess some creationists would have “kinds” as separate creations, and allow several species emerging from a “kind”, but that is a relatively modern form of creationism, responding to Darwinism.

    Originally all species were held to be separate and unalterable creations, and the idea of species evolving out of other species (even “micro-evolution” from “kinds”) had never even been thought of. (Darwin to Hooker: “I am almost convinced (quite contrary to opinion I started with) that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.”)

    The idea that the different human races were separate creations was argued, for example, by Arthur de Gobineau (1816–1882) in his book “Inequality of the Human Races” , which was a pre-cursor to Nazi ideology.

    For example, he argues that the Biblical Adam and Eve gave rise only to the White race, saying:

    “We must, of course, acknowledge that Adam is the ancestor of the *white* race. The scriptures are evidently meant to be so understood, for the generations deriving from him are certainly white”,


    “… there is nothing to show that, in the view of the first compilers of the Adamite genealogies, those outside the white race were counted as part of the species at all. Not a word is said about the yellow races, and it is only an arbitrary interpretation of the text that makes us regard the patriarch Ham as black”.

    I looked into all this a while back when I wrote a piece on: Nazi racial ideology was religious, creationist and opposed to Darwinism. The creationist and anti-Darwinian nature of their ideology is routinely downplayed.


  1. Pingback: Need to reject an archaic, racist inspired interpretation of the Bible and animosity against other believers | From guestwriters

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: