Evolution is both fact and theory. Creationism is neither. -anonymous

I watched The Real Eve on the Discovery Channel in April of 2002 several times. And for the most part I found it great. In undergrad one of my majors was anthropology, so I've always found evolution fascinating. My strong interest in science drew me as well. But of course one of the key reasons I tried to tell everyone black that I knew to watch it, was because the show was presenting the Recent Out of Africa model of hominid evolution. In my estimate, it is the strongest model out there - and not surprisingly the most accepted. So I thought it would really do a great deal of good if black men, women and children could sit and see people who looked like themselves portrayed as humanity's ancestors.

Well, imagine my surprise at the negative responses I got. Some openly denounced it. "I ain't watching that old evolution stuff", said one. Another wrote me back angrily decrying my lack of faith in God (he neglected to inform me of which one) and went into an all out attack on 'fancy-schmancy book learnin' from anything but the "Good Book". Others went into long discussions on why evolution is not "African-centered". Some genuinely however wanted to see the show, but feared buying into "that Darwinism stuff" would get them a one-way ticket on Gargoyle Airlines to a really, hot, nether realm with drab clothing and nasty little pitchfork wielding overlords.

I guess none of this should have surprised me really. A recent poll by the National Science Foundation showed that in general Americans have a poor and rather pitiful grasp on science. It concluded that at least 70% of Americans do not understand the scientific process. Only half of all polled knew how long it takes the Earth to revolve about the sun (that's one year folks)! Unfortunately, it seems that much of this ignorance on science is rampant in the black community. And much of it seems to be tied to religion and a growing fringe ideology known as Creationism.

Creationism is best described as a religious ideology that proposes it can provide evidence for events within the Bible (mostly the Old Testament Genesis book) as having occurred in the mundane world. Thus they spend a great deal of time looking for evidence of man's creation as described in Genesis and discounting evolution---what they see as an epidemic scourge. This is done sometimes through the disputing of fossil finds or the picking apart of dating techniques. Another major focus of Creationists is finding evidence for the Biblical flood as described in Genesis. All of this is done with very interesting scientific jargon, critiques, mathematical equations, etc. On the surface, especially to the non-scientifically inclined, it looks great. However there's one problem.

IT'S COMPLETE AND UTTER NONSENSE.

Creationism is as much science as George 'Dubya' Bush is an intellectual giant. Its grand theories and critiques of evolution and science are based mostly on misinterpretations, slander or outright lies. The greatest tools that Creationists have however are the minds of their audience. Most people WANT to believe them. Throw in plain ignorance to science coupled with distrust and bias, and what one has is a complete mis-education of the American public. And unfortunately, black people are not immune.

In fact it was found that African-Americans were actually more prone than whites to believe in Creationism: that 99% of Creationist works are written by right-wing religious whites doesn't seem to bother us. This new age mis-education of the Negro (to borrow Carter G. Woodson's assessment of the early 1900s) has sadly caused black people to flee science, especially evolution and anything dealing with the origin of the Earth and universe. Thus a program like The Real Eve that should have been inspirational to black people was shunned and condemned.

Now mind you I'm not saying this anti-intellectualism is a black thing. Anti-intellectualism is an equal opportunity disease. In the last presidential elections it was black people who voted for the intellectual candidate, while the majority of whites wanted someone a bit more dumbed-down. So Creationism and this anti-scientific stance is not something particular to any race. It's just that for many black people, a host of societal factors cause many of us to either be shut off from science or biased against it.

But luckily most of this is based on misinterpretations and falsehood that can easily be corrected with more accurate information. So lets put on our thinking caps and take a test. See how you score.

#1: Is the aversion to science, especially evolution, by black people completely irrational and founded in nothing?

NO! Science has not done the best job of winning over black people to its cause. In the US the early Tuskegee syphilis experiments showed that science was willing to use black people as guinea pigs. When it came to evolution, science's PR campaign to black people was abysmal. Early anthropology was called race-ology. And it mostly involved Europeans traveling the world, meeting and viewing other people and then describing why they were inferior. Saartjie Baartman, a Quena named woman known derisively as the Hottentot Venus, was paraded around 19th century Europe as a circus freak and prostitute. When she died scientists had her genitals and brain cut out and preserved, only to be recently returned this year. Such racism moved George Cuvier, anthropologist and major contributor to geology, paleontology and modern comparative anatomy to describe African women as "more like an ape". Medical doctor Robert Bennett Bean found "a deficiency in the Negro brain". In the early 1900s anthropologists allowed an African of short stature named Ota Benga to be featured as a type of ape in the Bronx zoo. Frank Haeckal's racist works on genetics and populations were so popular that a later Austrian named Adolf Hitler would forever idolize them in his ideas of racial purity. Thus black aversion to modern science, especially evolution, has a strong basis in history.

#2: Doesn't this mean black people should shy away from science - especially evolution?

NO! Anthropology did not make a true shift in its ways until Jewish anthropologist Frank Boas, mentor to black novelist and anthropologist Zora Neale Hurston, took it strongly to task. The fact that spin-off evolutionary ideas of race could be held partially responsible for the horrors of Nazi Germany did a great deal in that regard as well. Anthropology did a 180-degree turn, emphasizing the unity of mankind and even advocated the deconstruction of race. Eugenic ideologies were attacked harshly by anthropologists as well as related racist works like The Bell Curve. Today it is evolutionary science that gives us shows like The Real Eve and speaks of an African origin to humanity. It shows that science can be used for good rather than for ill.

And truthfully, is there really a field in the western experience that has been free of racism? The field of history has certainly not been free of bias. That's why black history month exists. Religion has surely not been free of racism. And it has been used to justify slavery, racism and genocide long before science. Point is, whatever misuse of science has been carried out in the western world it does not change the field. Science is science, with our without the evil that men do. Henry Ford was a white racist. People still drive cars. That evolution has had a racist past didn't stop black scientists like Cheikh Anta Diop from understanding and utilizing it.

#3: Isn't science (particularly evolution and ideas on the age of the Earth, universe) something white people invented?

NO! White people did not invent science. Science was understood the first time early humans planted crops and witnessed the change of the seasons. Science has been used by people worldwide for millennia. It's not new. It does not belong to any one people. The pyramids were created through science. The spiritual ideas of Ifa in West Africa have scientific premises. The watered-terraces of the ancient Meso-Americans were based on science. The irrigation temples of Angor Wat were based on science. The science of today does not exist in a vacuum. It comes from what was known before. The very computer you are using owes its binary functions to the ancient Chinese I Ching. The ancient Egyptians considered the Earth to be millions of millions of years old - which can translate into billions. African peoples noticed the similarities between humans and other primates thousands of years before modern hominid evolutionary theory. Thus science is not the sole domain of any one group of people. It exists with or without any of us.

Furthermore Europeans have not been working within modern science in a complete vacuum. Europeans would still be in the Dark Ages if groups of African and Western Asian Muslims did not ignite the Renaissance with their scientific understandings. Benjamin Banneker, a free black man living during the Revolutionary period of America, is considered one of the country's first scientists. And the US has had black scientists that have been responsible for everything from the traffic light you use, to your toilet, to the navigation system on the first space flight. Nigerian Phillip Emeagwali in 1989 was responsible for creating what was then the worlds' fastest computer. This is incidentally what allowed your internet-search engines in the 1990s to run so fast and what IBM computers utilized. Scientists of various hues have contributed to make the US the scientific powerhouse it is today. For anyone who thinks science belongs to Europeans, pick up a history book and break yourself of the idea that the white man is god.

#4: Isn't Evolution just a theory?

NO! Simply put, biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a FACT. It has been observed. Its been seen. You need info, see a scientist. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming it is considered a FACT, in as much as ANYTHING can scientifically be called a FACT. Evolution has happened. It is happening. It will continue to do so. When people speak of evolution as a theory, they are talking about the mechanisms that cause evolution the FACT. So biological evolution is FACT. How it happens and works is theory---with a lot of evidence to back it up.

#5: Didn`t Charles Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed?

NO! This story is FALSE. It is wholly UNTRUE and is passed along by Creationists who know better, but find nothing morally wrong with lying (though I could have sworn they had a commandment or something about that). For proof, contact any historical scholar on Charles Darwin. And even if it were true (which it is NOT), that would not destroy evolution. A scientific premise is not based on a figurehead or prophet. Much of what Darwin thought of evolution has evolved with the great amount of information and data learned/collected in the field. Evolution existed and was observed long before Darwin. A scientific premise stands on its OWN merits, not on some figurehead. This must be stressed for a common Creationist tactic is outright lies in the form of misquotes, thus painting false pictures of scientists not accepting their own findings.

#6: Evolution says humans came from monkeys. Yet things like gorillas haven't evolved into people.

NO! Evolution does NOT say humans came from monkeys. Rather evolution states that humans and other primates share a common ancestor. Glance at a chimp sometime. If you can't see qualities in its actions and looks that group in with humans, you are blind. They are even extremely closely related to us genetically. Yet we are talking about a common ancestor for different species. Evolution does NOT say humans came from chimps or gorillas. They are very distant cousins to humans, not ancestors. We evolved one way. They went another. Chimpanzees and gorillas HAVE evolved. Evolution does not mean they will get big brains and ride horses. Evolution does not equal "bigger brains" and "smarter". That is Planet of the Apes science-FICTION. It is NOT science. No one expects shrimp to one day become hyper-intelligent and make DVD players. That's not how evolution works.

#7: Isn't Evolution for atheists?

NO! Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. There are Christian evolutionists, Muslim evolutionists, Jewish evolutionists, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. How an evolutionist deals with his/her personal religion is up to him/her and is NOT a topic of discussion among the collective majority. The Catholic Pope accepts evolution. Last time I checked, he wasn't an atheist.

#8: Doesn't Evolution and science try to do away with God?

NO! Science cannot provide evidence for God. Science cannot provide evidence against God. Scientists only want to know what things occurred and how. Whether people want to put a God in front of those things or take God away is their individual religious/philosophical choice. Any scientist who uses his field to prove God exists (like Intelligent Design Theorists) is engaging in philosophy. Any scientist who uses his field to propose God does NOT exist is also engaging in philosophy. Neither ideology represents science. Thus you will never see a school science textbook advocating the existence or non-existence of God. That's what philosophy classes are for.

#9: Don't most religious leaders believe in Creationism?

NO! In fact many religious leaders denounce Creationism and assert their acceptance of evolution and other aspects of science, such as Earth and universe origins. In September 1982 the 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church acted to "affirm its belief in the glorious ability of God to create in any manner", rejected "the rigid dogmatism of the `Creationists` movement", and supported "scientists, educators, and theologians in the search for truth in this Creation that God has given and entrusted to us". Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences before its meetings on Cosmology and Cosmogony in October 1981, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the statement of Pope Pius XII that the universe was created "millions of years ago" (in European lingo millions is American billions) directly contrary to Creationist views. The Pope declared, "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise..." Davis A. Young, a theologian, scholar and scientist puts it even more bluntly from a Christian perspective: "It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause".

#10: Isn't Creationism scientific?

NO! Creationism claims to be scientific, but it completely misrepresents science and butchers the scientific process. According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for so-called creation "science" among those branches of science that deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%. That means 99.86% of trained scientists denounce Creationism. And the 0.14% that give it a chance don't all have the same Creationist views. Most Creationists have been known to have very shoddy and questionable scientific credentials. Thus the more extreme even still try to postulate a "flat-Earth" - as their medieval European Christian ancestors did.

#11: If Evolution is right about life and Physics/Geology is right about the age of the Earth and universe, does this mean Genesis is a lie?

NO! It makes the Genesis account like all other accounts of Creation the world over - symbolic. To quote the New Catholic Bible, "Biblical man, despite his undoubted intellectual and spiritual endowments, did not base his views of the universe and its laws on the critical use of empirical data. Rather, his thinking was imaginative, and his expressions of thought were concrete, pictorial, emotional, and poetic. Hence, it is a naive and futile exercise to attempt to reconcile the biblical accounts of creation with the findings of modern science". It further states, "The first eleven chapters of Genesis are much closer to mythical forms of writing. Myth, in this case, must not be understood to mean that the events told were fictional or untrue. A myth is a profoundly true statement which speaks to universal aspects of life and reality. It is a statement whose meaning rises above time and space". Thus the Genesis account of the Bible is not a lie if one understands it is symbolic and NOT literal. Symbolism is the realm of philosophy and religion. Literal interpretations belong to science and history. Mingling of the two causes confusion. The World Christian Encyclopedia contends that there are 19 major world religions that are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many thousands of smaller ones. Among these various faith groups, there are probably about 500 different creation stories. Each one of them is different and Genesis is but ONE of them. They are spiritually true because spiritual truth rests with individual choice. Literal truth however is true with or without someone believing in it. Creationists make it seem that religious texts cannot be read symbolically. This simply is not true.

#12: Evolution says everything happened by chance alone.

NO! Evolution is not simply the act of random occurrences but very often non-random selection. The very term "SELECTION" illustrates that evolution is talking about more than simply chance.

#13: How can Evolution be true? Doesn't it have missing links?

YES! Evolution has so-called "missing links". But guess what? There are A LOT of very FOUND links. These are transitional forms between species. Basilosaurus isis of the Ecoene epoch found in Egypt is a prime example. It's a fossil of a whale - but with LEGS! It is a FOUND link: a transitional form between itself and the legless seafaring whales we know today. There will always be "missing links". It would be a near impossible statistical feat to find the link for every single species that has ever existed for the past few billion years. No scientist ever expects to accomplish such a thing. But we have found so many that the pattern is obvious.

#14: We can't really know how old the Earth or Universe is. The dating techniques aren't accurate.

NO! Numerous independent findings have arrived at a date of 4.5 billion years for the age of the Earth. Numerous independent findings have arrived at a rough estimate of 14.5 billion years for the age of the universe. These different dating techniques are cross-examined. When you get the same data from more than one technique, you know you have some accuracy. For instance, radiometric isochron dating cross-references its self with numerous theoretical calculations, experiments, and astronomical observations to support that decay rates are constant. See any research on radiometric isochron dating. To arrive at these understandings and discoveries, scientists applied the very same scientific methodology that has yielded you this computer and the ability to flick a switch and "let there be light". Dismissing their research out of hand without a sound rebuttal would be akin to dismissing that you got up this morning and rode in a vehicle with a scientifically created combustion engine.

#15: We can't absolutely know anything that happened in the past, we weren't there.

YES and NO! Science, history and archaeology do not speak in absolutism. They do however speak in probabilities. And they can tell you what is more probable out of infinite possibilities. If I tell you my computer can grow wings and fly, I have stated one of many infinite possibilities. Using your brain, you can reason out how probable such a thing is without you being here with me. The same techniques that allows a historian to know what happened in medieval Mali1700 years ago without being there, allows you to know the moon is not made out of green cheese - even if you weren't there. We all know we have a brain in our head, without giving ourselves frontal lobotomies.

#16: You can't tell how old something is by looking at a rock!

YES and NO! You can tell how old something is by a host of means. Sometimes that through "looking at a rock". Sometimes it is through other means. Dating methods are various: stratigraphy, seriation, glacial geochronology, sea-bed deposits, coral clocks, varves, pollen analysis, dendrochronology, radiocarbon, potassium-argon, fission-tracking, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, uranium series, archaeomagnetism, CR (Cation-ratio), Fluroine, Nitrogen, obsidian hydration, amino acid racemization and more. So there's hardly one way to perform dating. And depending on the object in question or the age being looked for, one has to try different techniques. So its not as if scientific dates are arbitrary and pulled out of the air. They are not ASSUMPTIONS but based upon evidence. Not understanding how these techniques work does not make them less true. The same scientific process used in dating is the one used to give you this computer.

#17: Isn't it impossible to measure time? You don't have a starting point!

NO! Science and history use the present as their starting point. That is why things are written in terms of kya (thousands of years ago) or mya (millions of years ago), etc. The same premise that allows you to say that something occurred to you 1 minute ago, allows scientists to say something happened 1 billion years ago. That's how space and time are measured. Unless you live in a black hole where such things may break down, this point is moot.

#18: Isn't the Big Bang Theory impossible?

NO! It's got a lot of evidence to support it: from measuring leftover background radiation to the rate at which galaxies travel apart from each other. If one thinks such things are false, all one has to do is provide countering evidence. It should be noted, the Big Bang theory was first postulated by a Catholic priest named LaMarcke: showing that science and religion do not have to be at war.

#19: Doesn't the Bible say the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

That depends. If you take it literally and want to find that, yes it does. If you take it symbolically, no it doesn't necessarily say any such thing. It was a medieval European philosopher named Ussher who came up with the date of 6,000 years old using the Old Testament. I know of no ancient Hebrews who used their Old Testament text in that manner. Thankfully today, science has taught us better.

#20: Doesn't Genesis fit science?

NO! Genesis and science conflict greatly: from the formation of water before land (when science has found it to be the opposite) to the creation of plants before rain (which is not just anti-scientific but plain cruel). But again, Genesis is not a scientific treatise. It is a symbolic story. It does not have to and should not be made to fit literal science. Attempts to do so often result in utter absurdity.

MORPHEUS- Exposin Fake Shyt

[Released: May 2002]

Look for Part II of this continuing series: Noah's Flood: Separating Fact from Fiction and Fiction from Absurdity or The Boat is Too Damned Small Stupid!