Playing the racist card

Joshua Swamidass’s book on the Genealogical Adam and Eve Hypothesis is doing pretty well on the Amazon bestseller list. I guess that might bode well for my own book on the hypothesis once it comes out, if folks are interested in the possible applications as well as the science of the idea.

The thesis is simple: genealogical population genetics makes possible a universal pair of ancestors such as Adam and Eve arising, in relatively recent times, within the kind of human populations known to archaeology. That being accepted, Christians (and Jews) can work out the theological implications knowing that such a history is not anti-scientific.

Reasons for rejection of the paradigm ought to be pretty straightforward too. From the science side, the work done by Swamidass on the original thesis of Rohde and his associates might be argued not to show that a recent genealogical ancestor of the entire human race is, after all, possible.

On the theological side, it might be argued that even if such recent universal common ancestry is plausible, it does not deal adequately with the biblical data on the origin of humanity, the origin of sin, and so on.

Fair dos – theology, like science, is a matter for reasoned discussion of evidence. And so far, GAE has attracted positive regard from all sides of the origins question, and indeed many strands of Christian tradition.

But that, nowadays, appears not to be how things are done in parts of academia. It is not enough to be mistaken on controversial science – you must be shown to be immoral too. Scientific arguments against multiple sexes are fascist – arguments against cobbled-together hockey-sticks graphs are all financed by Big Oil.

Joshua (far more than I, despite my working with GAE for a decade now) was from the start tarred with the dreaded brush of racism at BioLogos. In the first instance, this arose from a simple lack of comprehension of the GAE argument, decrying the possible division of the present human race into Adamic humans and some kind of subhumans who might suffer discrimination. This would presumably come from bands of marauding Christians brandishing copies of Rohde’s Nature paper as clubs.

But of course, the entire theory is about the current genealogical unity of humanity (a requirement of Christian theology) despite the special character (in some way open to discussion) of a recent Adam and Eve. So far the only flag waved for actual non-Adamic humans in our time has come from postulating that Tasmanian aborigines were uniquely isolated when discovered, and so might be seen by some as non-Adamic.

This is entirely academic, as far as the risk of “Non-adamophobia” goes, because it’s likely that the last pure-bred Tasmanian died in 1876. If there happened to be any today, they would be indistinguishable from those having mixed aboriginal and European (and therefore Adamic) ancestry. It’s hard to imagine bands of racist GAE supporters organising DNA testing in order to be able to discriminate against the handful of non-Adamic people they conceived might exist in Tasmania if GAE is wrong!

It’s true that the Tasmanians suffered terribly both from malicious and unintended genocide (and the story is more complex than often described), but not only did that occur a couple of centuries before the GAE hypothesis ever arose, but long after the 1656 non-Adamite theory of La Peyrère had ceased to have any traction on anthropologists or colonial powers. The Tasmanians were abused by those who, presumably, believed they too were children of Adam, probably even uninfluenced by the evolutionary racism of Galton or Haeckel at that early time.

Yet at Peaceful Science yesterday a skeptic (“atheist trending agnostic”) couldn’t resist playing the race card to smear the theory by commenting that in a previous GAE discussion: “some shockingly racist opinions [were] being expressed about non-Adamic humans.”

Now, I’ve not checked if that’s true or not, but that’s irrelevant. Think about how entirely insubstantial it is as a moral accusation. This person does not believe in a historical Adam and Eve, and so does not believe there can ever have been any non-Adamic humans. Had there ever been, GAE theory suggests they were entirely assimilated into the Adamic line a millennium or more before the time of Christ. They are, to the skeptic, non-existent people who would have ceased to not exist 3,000 years ago anyway under GAE theory.

So how, in 2020, is it possible to practise racial discrimination against these supposedly fictional people? How would it be possible to engage in racism towards them even if they existed, but are long dead?

The first case would be like exhibiting racism towards Fred Flintstone – can you imagine the Hate Speech court hearing centring round offensive remarks made on Facebook about Fred’s stupidity or mysogyny? Isn’t there some kind of statute of limitations on crimes against fictional prehistoric characters?

The second case would be the equivalent of casting aspersions on the intelligence, hygiene or morals of Neanderthal man. This has, we all know, routinely been done in the history of anthropology, and still is, but if one disagrees with downplaying Neanderthal man’s attributes it is on the basis of fact, not of “anti-racism.” Evolution being accepted, there would have to be some ancestor of humanity considered sub-human – an admission that scarcely indicates “racism.”

But suppose someone were irrational enough to develop an unwarranted hatred of real prehistoric people? At a party, perhaps, someone says to you, “The only good Cro-Magnon is a dead Cro-Magnon – lynch the whole lot of the bastards.” The issue would surely not be a question of racism, but of mental health.

Now, part of the process of assessing the theological significance of a genealogical Adam and Eve is to speculate on how they (we, in other words) might differ from those outside the garden of Eden, who have also become us over the millennia. Some of those speculations may be more secure than others, but all are based on inadequate knowledge when that class of people has long past into pre-history (and the Bible’s concern is almost entirely for the race descended from Adam). Nobody can even establish that they were a “race,” and what that means in the context.

If somebody were to conclude that they were reprehensible in every possible way, accusing them of “racism” is just a cheap trick to thwart the discussion, as such accusations usually are in more contemporary situations. It’s a good sign you’ve run out of good arguments.

But if it is racist to speak ill of pre-Adamic humans (and I have quite the reverse attitude – sin came into the world through Adam, not the others), then make sure you never raise the possibility that interplanetary aliens may ever turn out to be worthy of criticism. Otherwise nearly every Sci-Fi film and book ever created will need to be burnt.

Jon Garvey

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in Creation, Genealogical Adam, Politics and sociology, Science. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Playing the racist card

  1. Robert Byers says:

    Amen. this was one of your best I ever read. hit the points and well said and not much said.
    As a YEC i see all humans as only from Adam/eve. Saying racism might be in these ideas of a non adamic humans is crazy on many levels.
    Indeed its all about uniting all people and no one is separate.
    Yes controls on thought/speech reach into academia but more to the point are just unreasonably wrong. Not regular wrong .
    Excellent point about all the claims/stories about outer space aliens. !!
    its said here and everywhere. The fredom of the people is being attacked by those who have no right to govern the people. The freedom to seek truth, justice, equity, and so thought/speech must be free . So nobody in power is to interfere.
    NOW God does not grant free speech, nor did we have free speech in our fathers homes. WE are not free to blaspheme, lie, slander or abuse/malice. literally not free to do these things. yer we the people are free for the good stuff AND SO we have not granted anyone to govern us. Indeed hate speech laws are illegal in anglo-american legal heritage. unless very careful investigation PROVES REAL hatred but even then I think its illegal at this point.
    We are free for truth and love but not hate. SO who governs? Nobody. SO we must put up with free speech malice and hate. the government does not control speech or should (save slander etc etc)
    In fact they never have a problem with the real hatred about our persons attributes. Its all coming from the left to control about a list of identity groups etc etc.
    I think the people will rouse themselves soon.
    Funny about Fred Flintstone. I loved the flintstones and he was not misogynist. (there is no such thing anyways). He spoke out of truth as he saw it. i will defend him in any court and win(well before normal people).
    We have free speech and simply must demand obediance to it by all powers.

  2. Robert Byers says:

    If I may. I just read Joshua Swamidass reaction to this thread.
    I think I can help show why Biologus accused, condemned, and punished JS for racism.
    JS is not a racist or said anything racist, indeed i deny there is such a thing EVER in human thought as RACISM. Its just a term invented within living memory by those who wanted to discredit some conclusions about people groups towards other people groups. Yes wrong conclusions or right ones but anyways a tactic .
    The biologos folks do not think JS is racist. In fact they never see non whites as racist or very unlikely.
    Yet they willingly and must obey a lAW in the upper classes/establishment against any racist conclusions iF THEY want to be creible in acedemia which is a issue for these religious people who discuss origin matters.
    JS said that there were segregated human types. Those from Adam and those not!
    At least living together for a while regardles if the non adam ones are not extinct.
    SAYING this meant there was, or there was a OPTION, that there was a moral, possibly intellectual, difference between these two/or more groups.
    RED ALERT they cried!
    This is the same thing as saying there is a OPTION for moral/intellectual differences between existing humans! ITS a principal they are enforcing! A law!
    THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE MORALLY/INTELLECTUALLY BETWEEN PEOPLE GROUPS PERIOD! Saying there is, or is a option, is RACISM.
    They must ban him or who else?
    It doesn’t matter if HE said they were morally/intellectually equal. he made a option by SEGREGATING human types as not ONE TYPE. RED ALERT!
    Thats the rub!
    JS can not escape.
    In saying some are created by God and some were not is saying humans are not equal just because we are humans. RED ALERT!
    They don’t think a non white Indian citizen of america is racist!! They don’t!
    However they must obey, willingly, the great law!!
    All humans that ever existed are one tribe. Evolutionists or creationists must obey this as a settled fact. Thus impossible for moral/intellectual differences.
    JS broke this law with his segregated human groups.
    Probably they can’t REALLY explain it this way but its thier private discussions.
    Nothing personal.

    I know its unjust and stupid. NO I deny any segregated groups and all people only come from Adam/eve period. NO there is no innate moral or intellectual difference between any human.
    Yet i say this is thought/speech control and is illegal in our free nations.
    However JS Peaceful science has practiced accusation , condemnation, and punishment based on race. Indeed JS brings it up in posts about the state he lives in and accuses himself how people groups are treated etc etc.
    What is the solution?
    Just saying ITS NOT ME, ITS NOT ME!?
    NO! There must be obedience to free speech/free thought by free men in america and acedemia.
    No suffering of accusation, condemnation, punishment by unelected people.
    If the government can not control speech, In America, then no other power can!!
    if anyone insists that evil things are being said, they call some of them racism, then they must go a long way to prove it. Full trial.
    JS was found guilty by illegal authority and his blog finds people guilty with illegal authority.
    JS can’t escape because he broke a concept/law about humanity There was no confusion or misunderstanding on Biologos part.
    We have judges over our thoughts/speech and they judged.
    You can’t appel or have a new trial.
    You must destroy thier authority to govern free men.
    JS should start at peaceful Science. Yes you can ban malice but malice is obvious.
    They ALL are banning conclusions they say are malice by being so repulsive to them and dangerous.
    I really think I made a good summery here. If anyone reads carefully.
    If I may comment on these sensitive matters. (may? well its a private blogfolks)

Leave a Reply