by Lucien Tuinstra

Published: 27 December 2019 (GMT+10)

Sadly, it seems that racism is rife in Italian football (soccer). The highest football division (Serie A) is in the news fairly regularly as one after another reported incidents of abuse are added to the long list of prior instances. Those within the main footballing authority, UEFA, have been scratching their heads on how to tackle this problem. However, the graphic designs recently launched by an Italian artist, to enhance UEFA’s anti-racism initiative, were not warmly welcomed, to say the least.

The artwork shows three chimps with coloured faces that supposedly represent different people groups. This includes variations in the colour and shape of their eyes although these differences are probably too subtle to have been picked up by most people. Evidently, artist Simone Fugazzotto believes that all people, regardless of their skin, have evolved from ape-like creatures. He explains the rationale behind the images as follows:

“I thought I’d make this work to teach that we’re all apes. So I made the western monkey -- white with blue eyes -- the Asian monkey -- with almond eyes -- and the black monkey in the middle, which is where everything comes from, this is what the evolutionary theory tells us. The monkey becomes the spark to teach everyone that there is no difference. It’s not that one is man and one is monkey. At this point, we are all monkeys … if they really feel the need to tell a black (player) that he is one.”

‘Now the monkey comes out of the sleeve’, as the Dutch proverb goes. Finally, here is someone who hits the nail on its head and, in so doing, reveals the double standard of the critics. The artist has incurred their wrath merely because he has reflected in his work the story that students are taught in schools and universities around the world: evolution. And keep in mind that he was actually trying to make an anti-racism point with his images! The fact of the matter is that, as CMI writers have been saying for a long time, evolution adds fuel to the fire of racial prejudice. In fact, some evolutionists have admitted as much. Evolutionary propagandist (and staunch anti-racist and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould once said:

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, 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.”

Of course, science per se shows no such thing. Rather, it is the evolutionary indoctrination masquerading as science which implies a scale of superiority. Is it any wonder that after years of sowing this false teaching, we are reaping the harmful consequences left, right, and centre?

And the racism problem in sport is far from being a peculiarly Italian one; see this example from the Australian Football League. A few months earlier, a Dutch news article highlighted once again the pitiful state of mind of some football fans, who assault black players with monkey sounds and banana peels and hurl insults at them. It is bad enough that these things happen, but it is sad that the sporting bodies don’t really know how to tackle this problem, let alone the root cause. Dutch league player Urby Emanuelson remembers one incident vividly: “The supporters of the opposing team made monkey sounds to several black players … ”

One of the players walked off in disgust and the rest of the team joined him in prematurely leaving the football pitch; the game was cancelled.

The BBC and other media rightly highlight these issues but offer no solution either, since they are equally confused (see No monkey business here please, we’re the BBC!). Why are people perplexed if children behave like animals, when in the school classroom they are taught that, in fact, they are! This erroneous education is continued into adulthood (colleges, universities and the media) and consistently applied by ‘faithful students’ on the stands of many football stadia and elsewhere.

But that’s not all. These insults and other loathsome actions are directed at ‘black’ players of the opposing team while, typically, the players of their ‘own’ team are spared. This bias is also seen in other areas of the game. Biases have the nasty habit of making people blind to their own shortcomings. For example, I have repeatedly witnessed supporters screaming at the referee when he blew the whistle against the home-team, when clearly a foul was committed. These same people would gladly turn a blind eye to a player from their home-team pretending he had been fouled. You wonder whether they needed glasses or if they just fancied blaming someone for the lack of ‘spectacle’ on the pitch.

Rooting for biblical roots

The Bible teaches that we all come from the first man Adam (and later Noah). We are all members of one human family. However, a consistent application of evolutionary teaching implies that some human beings are less evolved than others. This fallacious doctrine does nothing to decrease the bad behaviours we see in sinful children, adults, and society in general (e.g. football supporters). If anything, it aggravates it.

Is there an antidote to this prejudice? Yes, there is! CMI has long argued that the only remedy is to proclaim the truth and authority of the Bible, particular its Genesis history, and expose evolution for what it is: a deceptive anti-God philosophy that has undergirded many tragedies in this world and stifled science.

Source: https://creation.com/racism-campaign-backlash

G

Still peddling this rubbish of "evolution teaches some people are less evolved". A thoroughly meaningless statement since evolution does not espouse a hierarchical structure of the evolutionary path.

LordReed:
Still peddling this rubbish of "evolution teaches some people are less evolved". A thoroughly meaningless statement since evolution does not espouse a hierarchical structure of the evolutionary path.

Hear Stephen Jay Gould:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, 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."

You mean this quote of Stephen Jay Gould's is "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish"? You know more about evolution than Stephen Jay Gould?

DoctorAlien:


Hear Stephen Jay Gould:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, 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."

You mean this quote of Stephen Jay Gould's is "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish"? You know more about evolution than Stephen Jay Gould?

First off, Gould was merely reporting what others thought and did not espouse such beliefs himself. Read the entire chapter this excerpt came from: http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/ontogeny.html
jump to the chapter Racism.

Secondly, in that same chapter he says: "We never have had, and still do not have, any unambiguous data on the innate mental capacities of different human groups—a meaningless notion"

So I repeat it is meaningless.

Thirdly, Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man, clearly shows that he had no such notions of racial superiority based on biological evolution.

LordReed:


First off, Gould was merely reporting what others thought and did not espouse such beliefs himself. Read the entire chapter this excerpt came from: http://www.sjgarchive.org/library/ontogeny.html
jump to the chapter Racism.

Secondly, in that same chapter he says: "We never have had, and still do not have, any unambiguous data on the innate mental capacities of different human groups—a meaningless notion"

So I repeat it is meaningless.

Thirdly, Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man, clearly shows that he had no such notions of racial superiority based on biological evolution.

Clearly the author in the OP pointed out that Stephen Jay Gould himself was an anti-racist. So, your assertion that he didn't hold racist views has little to no bearing on the issue. The main question is this: why, according to Stephen Jay Gould, did biological arguments for racism "increase by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory"?

DoctorAlien:


Clearly the author in the OP pointed out that Stephen Jay Gould himself was an anti-racist. So, your assertion that He didn't hold racist views has little to no bearing on the issue. The main question is this: why, according to Stephen Jay Gould, did biological arguments for racism "increase by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory"?

That was not the question you posed. The question you posed was: You mean this quote of Stephen Jay Gould's is "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish"? You know more about evolution than Stephen Jay Gould?

And I have showed you it is indeed meaningless and not a position Gould subscribed to.

Your new question is akin to asking why some things trend. The response is they trend for all sorts of reasons, their popularity doesn't validate anything about the trend itself. The trend of people latching unto evolution as a basis of racism doesn't mean evolution teaches racism. People also use Christianity as a basis for racism does that mean the bible teaches racism?

Fighting racism with the Bible and its Genesis history? This has to be the joke of the century, considering the fact that racism had been justified with the Bible and is still justified with the Bible.

LordReed:


That was not the question you posed. The question you posed was: You mean this quote of Stephen Jay Gould's is "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish"? You know more about evolution than Stephen Jay Gould?

Well, it was a pertinent question, as I could not guess what you referred to as thoroughly meaningless. I had to ask to be sure which "statement" you were referring to as "meaningless".

And I have showed you it is indeed meaningless and not a position Gould subscribed to.

Your new question is akin to asking why some things trend. The response is they trend for all sorts of reasons, their popularity doesn't validate anything about the trend itself. The trend of people latching unto evolution as a basis of racism doesn't mean evolution teaches racism.

We have, up until now considered Stephen Jay Gould's views. What about this statement from the co-discoverer of the DNA helix structure, James Watson, in which he made very clear the implications of evolution when he stated in his 2007 memoir: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.” Source

People also use Christianity as a basis for racism does that mean the bible teaches racism?

Christianity has as its authority on doctrines and beliefs the Bible. So, anyone who holds a view which the Bible as a whole does not support has deviated from Christianity. And what does the Bible have to say on racism?

"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:34

“...God is no respecter of persons But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” Acts 10:34-35

"and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth..." Acts 17:26

So clearly, the Bible does not support racism. The Bible does not even know "races" as most people define them today. The Bible teaches that everyone descended from just one man (and one woman). If the Bible then is the authority of Christianity, it follows that one can never use Christianity to justify "racism".

Cc: fieryy

fieryy:
Fighting racism with the Bible and its Genesis history? This has to be the joke of the century, considering the fact that racism had been justified with the Bible and is still justified with the Bible.

Did you know that the situation where everyone descended from just one couple happened not once, but twice in Genesis? Clearly, every human being ever descended from Adam, because Adam himself called his wife the "mother of all living". (Genesis 3:20)

But then again, every human being that existed after the flood descended from just one couple: Noah and his wife. How then can you claim that the Bible teaches that there are different races, not to talk of justifying the disgusting behavior we know today as racism?

DoctorAlien:
Well, it was a pertinent question, as I could not guess what you referred to as thoroughly meaningless. I had to ask to be sure which "statement" you were referring to as "meaningless".


We have, up until now considered Stephen Jay Gould's views. What about this statement from the co-discoverer of the DNA helix structure, James Watson, in which he made very clear the implications of evolution when he stated in his 2007 memoir: “There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.” Source


Christianity has as its authority on doctrines and beliefs the Bible. So, anyone who holds a view which the Bible as a whole does not support has deviated from Christianity. And what does the Bible have to say on racism?

"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:34

“...God is no respecter of persons But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him” Acts 10:34-35

"and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth..." Acts 17:26

So clearly, the Bible does not support racism. The Bible does not even know "races" as most people define them today. The Bible teaches that everyone descended from just one man (and one woman). If the Bible then is the authority of Christianity, it follows that one can never use Christianity to justify "racism".

Cc: fieryy

Watson's memoir, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science: And Other Lessons from a Life in Science, is not a tome on evolution so what weight does it add to your argument?

Yet people use the bible and Christianity to justify racism despite your protestations to the contrary. Similarly, people use evolution to justify racism even if it does not teach it nor provides a basis for it.

LordReed:


Watson's memoir, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science: And Other Lessons from a Life in Science, is not a tome on evolution so what weight does it add to your argument?

Lol.

The memoir from which the quote was taken may not be dedicated to the discussion of evolution. However, the particular quote in consideration is undeniably referring to evolution. In the quote, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. He believed that intellectual capacity evolved.
2. He held that no firm reason existed for it to be anticipated that identical intellectual capacities would be found in peoples separated geographically in their evolution.

All references in this quote are clearly to evolution.

Maybe Dr. Watson is not alone in his views actually. Indeed it Dr. Watson did not intend for his views to be made public. (See this article from The New York Times.)

DoctorAlien:


Did you know that the situation where everyone descended from just one couple happened not once, but twice in Genesis? Clearly, every human being ever descended from Adam, because Adam himself called his wife the "mother of all living". (Genesis 3:20)

But then again, every human being that existed after the flood descended from just one couple: Noah and his wife. How then can you claim that the Bible teaches that there are different races, not to talk of justifying the disgusting behavior we know today as racism?

The Bible was used as a tool to justify slavery, segregation, racism, 'racial mixing', etc. Up till this date a lot of Christians strongly believe black people are descendants of Cain, with our skin color being the mark of Cain.
Others used/use the curse of Ham to justify slavery.

There's also sth called a Christian identity - a white supremacist interpretation of Christianity. Africa, Asia, America were colonized based on the belief of the white race being superior to others. That belief had been justified with the Bible.

The Bible is still used to justify homophobic beliefs, racism etc.

DoctorAlien:


Lol.

The memoir from which the quote was taken may not be dedicated to the discussion of evolution. However, the particular quote in consideration is undeniably referring to evolution. In the quote, it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. He believed that intellectual capacity evolved.
2. He held that no firm reason existed for it to be anticipated that identical intellectual capacities would be found in peoples separated geographically in their evolution.

All references in this quote are clearly to evolution.

Maybe Dr. Watson is not alone in his views actually. Indeed it Dr. Watson did not intend for his views to be made public. (See this article from The New York Times.)

So how does his opinion on our intellectual development equate to evolution teaches racial superiority?

there is no way you can separate racism from football hooliganism... they go hand in hand. fans of a particular football team will hate another team, for no damn reason, and will use anything (included race) to voice their hate.

fieryy:


The Bible was used as a tool to justify slavery, segregation, racism, 'racial mixing', etc.

But we have seen that any arguments from the Bible to support such disgusting things are bound to fail. The Bible asserts that we should love our neighbours as ourselves. The Bible knows just one human family, not many races.

Up till this date a lot of Christians strongly believe black people are descendants of Cain, with our skin color being the mark of Cain.

I have to tell you that the fact that I just learnt from you this theory of black people descending from Cain proves that those who hold it are a negligible minority. Anyway, just a quick reading of Genesis 5 will reveal that Noah, from whom the black people today descended, himself descended from Seth and not Cain. Such is often the nature of these arguments brought against the Bible: they're quickly exposed as false by some of the most simply presented statements in the Bible.

Others used/use the curse of Ham to justify slavery.

The main question is this: are they right in doing so? There can be only one answer: NO!

There's also sth called a Christian identity - a white supremacist interpretation of Christianity.

Then such a thing is in direct contradiction of the plainest principles set down in the Bible, shown forth, for example, by this verse: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

Africa, Asia, America were colonized based on the belief of the white race being superior to others.

A belief which is utterly unfounded.

That belief had been justified with the Bible.

Please how did the Bible justify the belief that the whites are Superior to others? Notice that I don't even want to call the whites a "race". This is because the Bible knows only one race: the human race.

The Bible is still used to justify homophobic beliefs, racism etc.

The Bible condemns homosexuality, yes. However, we do not sit as judges over homosexuals. We condemn the acts, while we seek to win the individuals over to Christ. Every sin is abominable to God, and so with the mouth with which we condemn all forms of sexual immorality, that is the same mouth with which we condemn homosexuality.

As I had shown, the Bible does not support "racism".

DoctorAlien:

As I had shown, the Bible does not support "racism".

No, darling you didn't show anything, but just wasted your precious time and most importantly mine.
The Bible was used as a tool to justify racism. Period.
You saying what the Bible does and doesn't say is an entirely different topic. It doesn't change the fact that the Bible was and is still used as a tool to justify racism.

I find it quite funny that you were quick to say that those are the opinions of others, yet this entire thread is built on what others think.

Science itself states that there is only one human specie living today - the homo sapiens.

What you are talking about are phenotypes.

fieryy:


No, darling you didn't show anything, but just wasted your precious time and most importantly mine.
The Bible was used as a tool to justify racism. Period.
You saying what the Bible does and doesn't say is an entirely different topic. It doesn't change the fact that the Bible was and is still used as a tool to justify racism.

I find it quite funny that you were quick to say that those are the opinions of others, yet this entire thread is built on what others think.

Science itself states that there is only one human specie living today - the homo sapiens.

What you are talking about are phenotypes.

I'm very sorry that I wasted your time. It was never my intention.

It may well be true that those who engaged in abominable acts tried to bring arguments from the Bible to justify such acts. But simply repeating the claim that people tried to justify such acts with the Bible is useless, akin to one repeating that someone tried to justify bank robbery with the Bible.

The only pertinent question is: are their arguments valid?

DoctorAlien:


Hear Stephen Jay Gould:

"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850, 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."

You mean this quote of Stephen Jay Gould's is "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish"? You know more about evolution than Stephen Jay Gould?

You are the one who fails to understand Stephen Jay Gould!

It is "Biological arguments for racism" that are "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish", and not the fact that we humans evolved, but trust you to cling on to the "races can be ranked on a scale of superiority" as the ignorant racists would.

DoctorAlien:

As I had shown, the Bible does not support "racism".

The main question is this: are they right in doing so? There can be only one answer: NO!

My Lord, does this not sound like the flat earth guy?

If Alien could only be this rational when discussing evolution.

budaatum:

You are the one who fails to understand Stephen Jay Gould!

It is "Biological arguments for racism" that are "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish", and not the fact that we humans evolved, but trust you to cling on to the "races can be ranked on a scale of superiority" as the ignorant racists would.

You were far more specific in this post on what is "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish" than Lord Reed was. But if the "meaningless statement" and "rubbish" refer to the biological arguments for racism, then I'm pretty sure the OP was not peddling such rubbish, because the OP is not a piece putting forth biological arguments for racism. How then could he be right in saying that I was peddling "thoroughly meaningless statements" and "rubbish"?

And then how did I cling to the "races can be ranked on a scale of superiority", when in fact the OP identified Stephen Jay Gould as an anti-racist?

You've said how senseless it is to use the Bible to justify racism, so I'm inclined to believe you are capable of applying the same understanding to the idea of evolution if you wish to.

Evolution does not agree that "races can be ranked on a scale of superiority".

DoctorAlien:


You were far more specific in this post on what is "thoroughly meaningless" and "rubbish" than Lord Reed was. But if the "meaningless statement" and "rubbish" refer to the biological arguments for racism, then I'm pretty sure the OP was not peddling such rubbish, because the OP is not a piece putting forth biological arguments for racism. How then could he be right in saying that I was peddling "thoroughly meaningless statements" and "rubbish"?

And then how did I cling to the "races can be ranked on a scale of superiority", when in fact the OP identified Stephen Jay Gould as an anti-racist?

DoctorAlien:


I'm very sorry that I wasted your time. It was never my intention.

It may well be true that those who engaged in abominable acts tried to bring arguments from the Bible to justify such acts. But simply repeating the claim that people tried to justify such acts with the Bible is useless, akin to one repeating that someone tried to justify bank robbery with the Bible.

The only pertinent question is: are their arguments valid?

You're not sorry, otherwise you still wouldn't be wasting my time.

I find it really ironic that you're asking me whether or not their arguments are valid.

1) I don't care about the whole book

2) Why didn't you ask yourself if Gould's opinion was valid?

By the way alien, do you also believe the earth is not a sphere?

https://www.nairaland.com/5508076/earth-flat-not-globe-part

https://www.nairaland.com/5476824/why-earth-surface-looks-flat

https://www.nairaland.com/5458081/been-lied-earth-flat-not

DoctorAlien:


I'm very sorry that I wasted your time. It was never my intention.

It may well be true that those who engaged in abominable acts tried to bring arguments from the Bible to justify such acts. But simply repeating the claim that people tried to justify such acts with the Bible is useless, akin to one repeating that someone tried to justify bank robbery with the Bible.

The only pertinent question is: are their arguments valid?

Or racism with evolution!

budaatum:

Or racism with evolution!

It's either he really doesn't see the hypocrisy and therefore doesn't get it

Or

He's pretending not to get it

Either way, lool

budaatum:
You've said how senseless it is to use the Bible to justify racism, so I'm inclined to believe you are capable of applying the same understanding to the idea of evolution if you wish to.

Evolution does not agree that "races can be ranked on a scale of superiority".

If only there was a central, unwavering authority on evolution from which we can evaluate the positions of evolution, just like the Christians have the Bible as their authority. I'm saying because someone like Dr. James D. Watson saw reasons to put "races" on a scale of superiority based on evolved intellectual capacity, stating that no firm reasons existed for one to anticipate identical intellectual capacities in peoples separated geographically in their evolution. And it appears many other scientists hold the same views as Dr. James D. Watson, but in secret.

DoctorAlien:


If only there was a central, unwavering authority on evolution from which we can evaluate the positions of evolution, just like the Christians have the Bible as their authority. I'm saying because someone like Dr. James D. Watson saw reasons to put "races" on a scale of superiority based on evolved intellectual capacity, stating that no firm reasons existed for one to anticipate identical intellectual capacities in peoples separated geographically in their evolution. And it appears many other scientists hold the same views as Dr. James D. Watson, but in secret.

Are we on the same planet, alien? Have you not been reading other threads in the religious section? Do all Christians have the same understanding of the Bible? Do some Bible readers not choose to not turn the other cheek and hate their neighbours instead? Would you blame the Bible for the stupidity of such People? If not, why should all people have the same understanding of evolution?

Please stop with the lies. They just make you ridiculous! If a view is held in secret I wonder how you know of it!

fieryy:


It's either he really doesn't see the hypocrisy and therefore doesn't get it

Or

He's pretending not to get it

Either way, lool

He does get it, just that like some, he needs to distort the the facts to justify his beliefs.

budaatum:

My Lord, does this not sound like the flat earth guy?

If Alien could only be this rational when discussing evolution.

I thought he would take a hint when I brought up the Bible justifying racism. He can arrive at the conclusion that the Bible does not teach racism but cannot for evolution, a crying shame for the limits of his rationality.

budaatum:

Are we on the same planet, alien? Have you not been reading other threads in the religious section? Do all Christians have the same understanding of the Bible? Do some Bible readers not choose to not turn the other cheek and hate their neighbours instead? Would you blame the Bible for the stupidity of such People? If not, why should all people have the same understanding of evolution?

Please stop with the lies. They just make you ridiculous! If a view is held in secret I wonder how you know of it!

At least, the Christians have the Bible to interpret differently. Which equivalent do the evolutionists have (to interpret differently)?

DoctorAlien:


At least, the Christians have the Bible to interpret differently. Which equivalent do the evolutionists have (to interpret differently)?

Which equivalent does any scientific field have? Is evolution a replacement for God according to your understanding? Is that why you see it as a religion?

You never did answer my question alien. What are you a doctor in?