- Anything Else -

but you'll get a dull answer

In Reply to: that's an interesting question to ask a creationist. posted by little green tree frog on August 27, 1999 at 11:04:08:

: i would be interested to know how creationists explain the rise of different races stemming from two people--Adam and Eve--without using some concept of evolution or gene mutation.

To answer your question, in a class I did on "Race and Culture in America" last year, some of my students used the "Lost tribes of Israel," others used the fall of the tower of Babel (origins of diverse languages). The most "creative" ones argued that Ham, Shem, and Japhet (Noah's son's) were "Black," "Asian," and "White," respectively.
All were, of course, whacked. The "origin" of contemporary biological variation in human populations is not something that even needs to be explained as an "event," it was a gradual accumulation over thousands of years. Genetic mutations arise and either persist or are selected out. Some persisting mutations have visible phenotypic effects, while others don't. We don't need to explain the great variety of humans in any other way than the accumulation of new traits and isolation of subsets (localized populations) of the species and consequent "founder effect." The only reason that biblical literalists need to explain "races" is that they propose the world is only a few thousand years old, and there is therefore not enough time for this process to have occurred.
Since all the evidence points to an earth that is 4.5 billion years old, and no evidence supports the 6000 year old earth, answers about human history that are based on the assumption of a young earth are unsatisfying, usually illogical, and ultimately irrelevant.
This is not to say that philosophical, moral, or ethical systems that are based on biblical teachings are false. They are not at all. The bible is full of good, sound advice on moral and ethical subjects (e.g. don't kill people, don't sleep with other folks' spouses, don't lie, etc.). The problem lies in the mistaken use of this book of ethics and meaningful, inspirational stories as an alternative to scientific research. The bible is not intended as a scientific document, but as a historical, and philosophical treatise on appropriate social behavior. Some Christian extremists believe that the bible should also be used to address scientific questions to which it is unsuited. (you don't study your history book in order to do well on math tests, right? so why study your bible to learn about biology?) This is, in my opinion, a gross misuse of the text, but that's just my personal feeling.
Hope that answers your question.
-Floyd

Follow Ups:

None.