Religious faith and evolution

Ron Guhname at Inductivist discusses the role played by one’s religious beliefs in either accepting or rejecting Darwin’s speculations.

This is a question that interests me because I’ve come to notice over the years that fellow Christians often accept the idea of life originating spontaneously and human beings having ‘evolved’ from the primordial soup, or whatever today’s equivalent belief.

I don’t see how the two belief systems can be reconciled because Darwin’s ideas, at least as interpreted by postmodern Western peoples, have no room for a Creator, without twisting the plain teaching of the Christian Bible.

But it does seem as though most people on the right, though they may be nominally Christian, are willing to go along with the Darwinian orthodoxy rather than the Biblical teaching.

Not long ago I mentioned the results of a study by George Barna, the pollster who reports on Christian beliefs and practices. The results of the poll he had just done showed that the great majority of Americans who assert they are Christians do not in fact have a Biblical worldview. Instead, they seem to let the world shape their free-flowing interpretation of the Bible. For example, “the Genesis creation story can’t be true because archaeological findings prove that the earth is x billion years old, and the creation story in Genesis would seem to describe a more recent event” or words to that effect.

The Inductivist analysis of the data on people of various faiths vis-a-vis evolution show that (not surprisingly, I suppose) Moslems show the highest numbers of disbelievers in evolution, at 65.6 percent. Next, at 65.5, are those identified as simply ”Christians”.

Confusingly, next on the list are ”Protestants”, with a 63.6 per cent rejection of Darwinism or evolution. I don’t know why Protestants are differentiated from ‘Christians’ here. I would say the non-squishy Protestants (not liberal, not mainline) are less likely to believe in evolution or other non-Scriptural beliefs.

But in any case, comparing Protestants and Moslems it looks as though the numbers are pretty close as far as skepticism or disbelief in evolution. I just wonder why it seems that few right-wing Christians seem to question evolution, especially those people who accept the ideas of HBD. It seems to be necessary for them, in order to hold their current ambivalent beliefs, to accept that peoples “evolved” because of migration to different climates, producing ‘mutated” phenotypes, etc. It almost seems just a way of justifying their belief in HBD, because it sort of scientizes it.

But I don’t see how one can prove (sans a so-called ‘missing link’) that peoples can evolve into very different peoples no matter how much time might be allotted for this alchemy to take place, any more than the idea of life springing out of nothingness, caused by nothing.

Someone recently said, ‘if God wanted to create the domestic dog, couldn’t he just create the dog as He wanted him”, rather than taking the raw material (the wild canis lupus) and transmuting him into our pet dog? Couldn’t the same question apply to human beings? Maybe there were multiple progenitors not just two. Genesis even suggests this, if you read the book carefully.

In defense of ‘fundamentalists’

The mere title of this post will probably garner some unfavorable reactions from the PTB, if they are looking in. Why should it, though?

These days, most people have heard or read the term ‘fundamentalist’ applied only to members of a certain religion — do I dare to mention it?

But even when the term is applied to what I call simply “old-time Christians”, it’s a pejorative, usually, meant to apply to what one blogger, whose post I just read, called ”fanatical zealots” or some such name.

I feel very defensive about the use of disparaging or outright hostile terms applied to fellow Americans who are nothing more than old-fashioned Christians who — imagine this: — actually believe in the Bible. I guess that is unimaginable to lots of people, after all it’s the current year, and nobody (that is, nobody that the critic considers normal or sane) actually beieves the Bible in its entirety. Yet just about every American of a Christian background has ancestors who did actually believe the Bible, including the miracles and other “unscientific” parts.

What does it say that we are willing to dismiss as ‘zealots’ and ‘fanatics’ our own ancestors, who happened, in most cases, to have been good and decent people, though these same critics tolerate many not-so-decent people, simply because they believe in the present-day ‘gods’ of Science and “open-mindedness” and all the rest?

At least they’re not ‘fanatical zealots’ like those awful Puritans, of olden time, right? Or those modern-day fundies who live in the past ,and believe absurd things?

I had a beloved Grandmother who was what the critics call a ”fundamentalist.” And what does that word mean? If you look in a present day dictionary you will probably see it defined as ‘fanatic’ because that seems to be the consensus among the ‘respectable’ people looking down on the ignorant “fundies”. Even some ‘Christians’ will use the word ‘fundies’ when talking of people who uphold the old-time Christian beliefs.

Incidentally, lest anyone think that the discredited TV ‘evangelists’ represent fundamentalism, they most decidedly don’t, in most cases. I am ashamed to say that most TV preachers represent the new Christianity that compromises unashamedly with the ‘world’.

My Grandmother had a deep influence on me, as did her whole generation. That generation, especially rural Southrons, were the last of their kind, I’m afraid. My Grandmother had been raised as a ‘Primitive Baptist’, another name that is being mentioned in a negative way — after all, the word ‘primitive’ is part of the label, so it can’t be anything but a backward group of people, right?

As for me I was baptized in another one of those churches that are more common in the South — and, like the Primitive Baptists, very Bible-believing. I guess that means I am in the ‘backward’ category, too, according popular wisdom.

As a people, we’re shooting ourselves in the foot by ‘drawing circles’ that shut each other out. It strikes me as a form of status-signaling, if not virtue-signaling, to go out of our way to make invidious remarks towards our own folk and their religious practices. Those of us who are Christian, and I mean Christian by deed and not just by name , are brothers and sisters in Christ, should we be found ‘othering’ each other, on grounds of our differing ideas of Christianity? And can we afford to do that?

I don’t object to being called a ‘fundamentalist’ because it originally did not carry such negativity. It simply meant those who accept the Five Fundamentals of the Christian Faith.

I ‘m not writing to try to impose my Christian beliefs on anyone, and I often refrained from mentioning my religious beliefs lest I alienate someone, though Christians are not to hide our faith, but rather share it.

Now, when it seems that we are up against some serious travails and troubles, faith is needed; ”Science” has proven itself to be dishonest and compromised; being only based on human perceptions, it is as flawed as its human origins. As we humans aren’t all-knowing or all-wise, where do we look for guidance? Do we put our blind faith in ‘Science’, falsely so-called?

I can’t write in the inspired way in which Cambria Will Not Yield writes. This post is simply to make the point that slurring Christian neighbors , our ancestors, and our fellow-Christians, is misguided, counterproductive, and not the thing that our side should be doing. We expect this from liberals and other nonbelievers, but from our own folk? Et tu, brute?

I realize many people out there do not share my faith, or my variety of Christianity. It isn’t my purpose to preach the particular beliefs in which I share, though I happen to believe that we need to rediscover the Faith of our fathers, and to cast aside all of today’s prejudices against that ‘Good Old Way’ which strengthened them so much. It seems that we lack the strength and serenity that I saw in the older generations. But those qualities can’t be attained by “positive thinking” or ‘self-help’ or any of the nostrums of today.

Ultimately that ‘fundie’ that is being disparaged is your kin as well as mine, and he is not a dangerous ‘fanatical zealot’; he is simply someone who does not chop and change with the winds, or the seasons, or the prevailing prejudices of our times.

Another ‘Earth Day’ come and gone


Earth Day, 1990, as described by a contemporary news article. Actually I was there that day, in 1990, in Central Park. (Yes, I’ve admitted I was ‘liberal’ in the past, in my misguided younger days.) The article above sums up the hypocrisy of most ‘progressives’, in that it’s always ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ They give themselves a pass on ‘disrespecting Mother Earth’ by scattering literally tons of litter and garbage as they bemoan ‘harming’ the planet by our throwaway culture.

Earth Day in 2017 apparently featured their ‘March for Science’, which I understand was an occasion to focus on ‘climate change denialists’, and to proselytize for their ‘Climate Apocalypse Cult’, as someone in the dissident-right  blogosphere (accurately) calls it.

But speaking of denialists, where is the progressives’ devotion to holy Science when people like Nobel-winning scientist James Watson say things they don’t like? When it comes to matters of HBD and race/ethnicity, ‘progressives’ simply silence those who speak honestly about it. They like to pick and choose which ‘Science Truths’ they accept and which they will acknowledge.

Hypocrisy and double standards are always the order of the day for the left.

One little Earth Day factoid: one of the co-founders of Earth Day was (((Ira Einhorn.))) Some of you may remember him as the radical who killed his unfortunate girlfriend, whose body was found in a closet in Einhorn’s Philadelphia apartment. The news stories referred to his ‘composting’ her body. Maybe he was thus showing his respect for sound environmental principles. But true to form, the left denies that Einhorn was one of the founders of their sacred Earth Day. Don’t like a fact? Just “deny, deny, deny,” as Bill Clinton famously advised those caught in some wrongdoing.

Oh — and just for the record, (((Einhorn))) was not a ‘boomer’; he was born in 1940, so he was part of that ‘Silent Generation’ which produced people like (((Abbie Hoffman))), Tom Hayden, and many other lefty icons.

Facts in black and White

Those who are interested in HBD issues should take a look at this information on black Americans’ genetics, in a study on The Great Migration and African-American Genomic Diversity.

It’s summed up here.

It’s interesting in that it supports what I have said about the percentage of White ancestry among American blacks. According to this study the average amount of European ancestry among them is relatively small.

“An estimated 82.1% of ancestors to African-Americans lived in Africa prior to the advent of transatlantic travel, 16.7% in Europe, and 1.2% in the Americas, with increased African ancestry in the southern United States compared to the North and West.”

I also note that contrary to what some say, the blacks in the South actually have less White ancestry on average than those in the Northern and Western states. Oftentimes people with an anti-Southern axe to grind (and this unfortunately includes some people who consider themselves pro-White) assert, without any backup of course, that Southern blacks are noticeably ‘whiter’ or lighter skinned than Northern ones. Or someone just makes a bald statement that ”there was more mixing in the South”, and they make insinuations about ‘slave-owners raping their slaves’, an unproven assertion if ever there was one.

Quite a few online commenters say that black Americans must have lots of White blood because ‘they’re much lighter-skinned than blacks in Africa‘ so there must be lots of White blood in American blacks. Actually, no. You need only look at lots of pictures of Africans of various regions and see the variations of skin tone. Not all Africans are of the darkest hues. It depends on their region or tribe. Lighter skin is relative, and lighter skin in Africa need not denote ‘European blood’, just as it means no such thing here.

But the maddening thing is this continued insistence from some Whites (including those who should know better) that rape had to be involved in all past cases of mixing between the two races.

Unfortunately this scientific study makes similar insinuations about the White ancestral traces found in some blacks, as in this passage:

…the historical record of early admixture occurring predominantly through coerced sexual interaction between European-American males and African-American females…

Please. These scientists should surely know that this is supposition. Presence of European DNA in blacks does not testify to ”rape” or  excuse me, ”coerced sexual interaction“; it only says that there was sexual congress. There is no way ”coercion” can be established by any scientific means. That’s why rape accusations today can’t be proven simply by the presence of some male’s DNA in a female, or even by the fact that a child might be born carrying DNA from that male. It is somehow assumed that any White DNA proves rape by a White male of a black female. Why is this automatically assumed by ”scientists” who supposedly deal only in known facts, provable evidence? I can only think it’s assumed because our mass-delusional, PC society says that minorities can do no wrong; that they can’t lie or deceive, and that if any wrong is done, they are always victims and never the guilty parties, never even complicit in any wrong.

These scientists lose respect in my eyes because they are dealing in popular urban legends which cannot be proven when they assert that ‘sexual coercion’ was involved in centuries-past acts, by unknown people.

Did rapes happen? Given fallen human nature, it’s possible. But keep in mind that the act of miscegeny, even on a casual or occasional basis was highly stigmatized by most White people in the South, and to a lesser degree, even in the North. Was it similarly taboo on the part of blacks? I suppose if you believe, like many of today’s generation, that all White men, especially slave-owners were diabolically evil, wantonly cruel, brutal, and depraved, then you will assume that rape was the only way in which sexual contact would occur between Whites and blacks. In fact most slave-owners did not beat and brutalize their slaves; it would have made little sense, and beyond that, most were Christians, and the Bible teaches slaveowners to treat their slaves humanely. And yes, the Bible did not and does not condemn slavery nor recommend that it be abolished and condemned universally. Anyone who says otherwise is ‘adding to’ the words of the Bible, which is condemned as a serious offense to God.

Just as with ‘sexual harassment’ charges today, there are, truth be told, cases of women who barter sex for a good grade in college, or for a promotion or better treatment at work.  I know that feminists angrily deny that such things could possibly happen — but happen they do. Many, many young women develop crushes on their professors in college, and many have had affairs, willingly, with them, not always with the aim of passing a course or getting an A or a recommendation for grad school. For many it’s simply a rite of passage. Nowadays with most young women being fairly lacking in inhibitions, there are no doubt many who proposition their profs or bosses, though there are true cases of harassment, of course. It happens. But there are plenty of women who are consenting to sex as a quid-pro-quo with men in authority, or women who just enjoy casual intimacy with whoever. Is it impossible that slave women consented to overtures from the White overseer (a much more likely partner than the plantation owner)? Or with anyone who might offer something they wanted? With Yankee soldiers, in fact, since oftentimes the slaves tagged along with the retreating Yankees, wanting to go to the Northern land of milk-and-honey?

It’s also a fact that even today many blacks look down on darker skin amongst their own. There’s even a name for it: “colorism.” I had a female black co-worker who was unsure about marrying her very dark-skinned boyfriend — she said it was because of his color. She had fairly dark skin herself but wanted lighter children. Many women of other races openly pursue White men for this reason, though my co-worker did marry her ‘too dark’ boyfriend.

Rape or not (and I doubt it was always the case) there were more likely White partners for the female slave than slave-owners. As I’ve said I’m particularly galled that the Jefferson family name is forever tarnished by the repeated urban legends about Thomas Jefferson ”raping” his slaves. Since the 1990s, when that loathsome Bill Clinton and his sleazy sycophants re-started 19th century rumors about the Sally Hemings, the story was that ‘Jefferson fathered a child by Hemings’, and it got worse: he fathered ‘all her children’ and then it went on to ‘Jefferson slept with his slaves [plural]’ and worse yet, ‘Jefferson raped his slaves.’ I suppose few people care; hardly anyone respects the Founding Fathers these days. They are now seen as culpable for the disaster America has become, rightly or wrongly.  However I care because it’s my family heritage and my blood kin who are being slandered, and they are not alive to defend themselves.

More than that, I care about the ‘good name’ or what is left of it of my larger group of blood kin, and that is old-stock Americans, generational Americans. More of us should care about it and try to counter all the lies and slanders, and to correct the falsehoods, urban legends, and falsehoods regarding race, HBD and the reputation of our own people.