Ken Ham on Darwinism and Race, Part 4: Darwinism’s Egalitarian Morality

Part 1: Is Race a Darwinist Construct?
Part 2: Racial Realism and Miscegenation
Part 3: Darwinism’s Atheistic Implications

Introduction

Darwinism’s rejection of teleology in nature has permitted atheism and materialism, along with the accompanying nihilism, to become far more widespread than before. With God out of the picture in theories of our biological origins, there was far less reason to believe in His existence in general. This paradigm shift had devastating ideological effects, and we will now see the effects of this shift upon morality.

Atheistic Materialism, Secular Humanism, and Egalitarian Morality

Given the nature of the atheistic worldview, it shouldn’t be surprising that the transition from Christianity to atheism has wreaked tremendous havoc on the Western psyche. Predictably, culture has declined drastically since Darwinism, and in consequence atheism has carried the day. Great artists, composers, sculptors, authors, and architects were inspired by meaning and purpose rooted in the Christian experience, for high culture is inspired by transcendence. Today’s modern art, architecture, literature, and music portray the confusion and nihilism that is naturally derived from the hopelessness and vanity of atheism. Without a sense of objective meaning and purpose, there can be no value or beauty.

In order to avoid the nihilistic implications of atheism, atheists and postmodern philosophers have sought for something to help ascribe meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. The German skeptical philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche suggested that “God is dead,” proposing that a superman would emerge with a “will to power” to restore purpose and order in the void left by Western man’s atheism. Others sought meaning and purpose in social engineering, and the late nineteenth and early twentieth century witnessed the emergence of social justice and the social Gospel. The Great War was an attempt to remove evil from the world by sweeping away the old monarchical and aristocratic regimes in Europe. What has become known as the First World War was intended to be the war that ended all wars. Only it failed…miserably. The twentieth century was the bloodiest in human history, and it doesn’t appear likely that the twenty-first will offer any reprieve. The West was embroiled in another world war within decades and the last remaining vestiges of Christian civilization were essentially swept away, leaving succeeding generations to grapple with the reality that civilization has been ruined.

Initially, the influence of Darwinian evolution on social policy was reflected in the cause of eugenics and a concern for fit breeding. The eugenics movement manifested itself in the policies of many Western nations, with Germany and the United States taking the lead. While there were certainly aspects of the eugenic movement compatible with a robust view of race, this movement was short-lived and largely died out in between the two world wars, being essentially nonexistent after the Second World War. While there were many directions that atheistic morality could have gone at this point, there is one clear direction in which it did go. Since the conclusion of the Second World War, atheistic secular morality has been enamored of equality.

While many secular humanists allow for the possible existence of a deistic God, the underlying philosophy of secular humanism is derived from and compatible with atheistic materialism. The problem of inequality from the humanist perspective is that if this life is all there is, then it isn’t fair that life presents different people with different opportunities. Some people will have a far easier time achieving success and happiness because of their natural endowments and their fortuitous circumstances. Other people are seemingly destined to a life of mediocrity by the nature of their circumstances. Some people even find themselves in miserable situations by no fault of their own. To a secular humanist, there is no rhyme or reason for these differences in experiences which impact people’s lives.

Just as Charles Darwin did not invent the concept of evolution, Darwinism is not the source or beginning of egalitarian thinking. At bottom, egalitarianism is a rebellion against God’s created order in succumbing to envy at the “unfair” advantages of others. Hence egalitarian envy has been present since the Fall, when Satan tempted Eve by telling her that she would be like (or the same as, or equal to) God, knowing good and evil (Genesis 3:5); it would hence be inaccurate to attribute the existence of egalitarian thinking in its entirety to Charles Darwin or Darwinism. The modern Western obsession with equality can be traced back to the French Revolution, but this episode in Western history might have been nothing more than a bad memory if not for the Darwinian revolution. When Darwin assailed teleology and purpose, Europe was well on her way to recovering from the hangover of the Reign of Terror. Darwinism could also have also propelled Europeans into a primary concern for good breeding, as were the goals of such eugenic thinkers as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard. They and others like them have lost this battle, for Darwinism provides no ultimate meaning or purpose for racial distinctions in the first place. Everything is meaningless, so why worry about the future of the white race – or anything for that matter?

The secular humanist’s natural response to this conundrum has been to advocate for social equality, as achieved in several ways. First, humanists deny differences in natural endowments as much as possible. The progress of secular humanism has arrested the development of a genuinely scientific understanding of human differences. This applies not only to race but to gender as well. The second way in which secular humanists achieve their goals is through social engineering. The movement for women’s rights began in the late nineteenth century and culminated with women’s suffrage. It was just the tip of the iceberg in the campaign for what has become known as social justice. The march towards racial equality largely began with the push for integration in the 1950s and succeeded in the 1960s with the passage of civil rights legislation. Since this time, legal and social barriers against miscegenation have been torn down, both miscegenation and transracial adoption having been actively encouraged. All of this has occurred with the staunch backing of the secular humanist establishment.

The biblical view of social hierarchy disgusts modern secular humanism because the only value in which humanists take refuge is equality. The triumph of Darwinism in the modern Western mindset has undermined a belief in the spiritual and the transcendent. If there is no spiritual reality, then our lives have no meaning beyond our short, mortal existence, and thus it isn’t fair that some people might have more advantages or privileges than others based upon nothing more than their circumstances of birth. As a result, the pursuit of equality has become the basis of post-Darwinist social reasoning.

The rising tide of both secular humanist philosophy and Darwinian evolution is no accident. These two ideologies are eminently compatible. By undermining Western man’s belief in divine purpose, Darwinian evolution made it impossible to justify any type of social inequality under the auspices of divine ordination. With Darwinism has come secular humanism and its quest to eliminate all forms of social and biological equality. Indeed, all humanistic morality can be reduced to the pursuit for equality, even in cases where this isn’t absolutely obvious. The campaign for legalized abortion is framed as an issue of women’s equality. Pregnancy hampers women’s ability to devote themselves to a career in the same way that man can, so abortion on demand is necessary to prevent inopportune pregnancies. Similarly, the gay marriage debate is framed as an egalitarian civil rights issue as well, and indeed it is the logical conclusion of all the past concessions offered unto equality. If men and women are truly equal and therefore interchangeable, even to the extent that gender roles are irrelevant, then there is no compelling reason why marriage cannot transpire between two men or two women. Again, campaigns for economic equality are based upon the belief that poverty is the cause of crime. Therefore the rich and even middle class must be taxed in order to even everything out. From the humanist perspective, something is right when it makes people more equal and wrong when it makes people less equal.

This moral worldview is not without its moral inconsistencies, however. Its very espousal of meaningful social pursuits contradicts its atheism. If humanity is nothing more than a constellation of molecules, as atheistic materialists claim, then there is no meaning or purpose to life. Atheist and secular humanist Richard Dawkins, as well as others, admit as much. But the attempt to find meaning in equality must then be pointless and absurd. Everyone will share in the equality of death and oblivion, and this is true not only of humans but of all other creatures as well. Objectively speaking, from the atheistic perspective, our lives have no more value than a beetle or cockroach, since we all die and go to the grave together. This is exactly the point of the book of Ecclesiastes. Without the future judgment to establish meaningful consequences to our actions in this life, this life truly is vain and meaningless. God’s existence and genuine interest in human activity give our life meaning and purpose. The Westminster Catechism correctly establishes that the purpose of life, the “chief end of man,” is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. Outside of this very biblical answer, no objective basis for human worth, value, or purpose can be established.

It is truly a shame that so many Christians have been duped into elements of humanist equality. Christians seek to expose the internal inconsistencies of abortion by suggesting that unborn human children should have an equal chance at life. While this objection does accurately identify an inconsistency in the pro-abortion position, this strategy has proved ineffective. Likewise, Christians have failed to stem the tide of officially recognized gay marriage. Most Christians today accept the main premise behind gender equality, in that most Christians believe that women should possess equal civil rights to men. Having accepted this false premise, it is difficult to avoid the logical conclusion: a more absolute equality between men and women. If women are to be equal to men, then pregnancy should become optional even when a woman wishes to engage in sexual intercourse. The fact that she might be saddled with a child when she doesn’t want one just isn’t fair. Likewise, if the roles of men and women in society are interchangeable, then why shouldn’t this premise be applied in the most basic way to the question of marriage? It’s only fair that men should be able to marry other men and women other women if our differences are reducible to a mere difference in sex organs. Unless Christians are willing to confront unqualified social equality for what it truly is – an anti-Christian, humanist lie – they will be doomed to continued failure.

The Christian Perspective on Hierarchy and Social Order

In the Christian worldview, the only equality of rights is based upon the second table of the Ten Commandments. For example, people have a right to life and property because of the commandments prohibiting murder and theft. What we commonly call civil rights – the right to vote, hold public office, or sit in certain places in a restaurant or theater – are not taught in the Bible as universal or “human rights.” Inequality is a part of life, for no two persons’ circumstances are the same. In the parable of the talents,¹ Jesus states that a man who is travelling gives his servants different numbers of talents (a talent here being a measure of gold). Upon returning, the master rewards or punishes his servants based upon whether they have done well with what they had been entrusted. Likewise, God gives to everyone different talents, gifts, abilities, and circumstances. We will be judged in justice by God based upon what we have done with what has been given us. The faithful, as heirs of righteous Abraham, will inherit the whole world upon Christ’s return as an everlasting heritage (Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:29; 4:7).

The Christian worldview maintains that all humanity is ontologically equal in that we are all created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-28). This serves as the basis for human dignity, setting us apart from and above the rest of God’s creation. What contrasts the Christian worldview from the secular humanist worldview is that the Bible does not teach social or political equality. The Bible teaches the meaningfulness of familial, racial, and gender distinctions, and that these differences entail different privileges, rights, and responsibilities. For example, the firstborn son has the right to inherit the double or chief portion of his father’s ancestral estate and property (Deuteronomy 21:17). The position of the firstborn son was not equal in the family to his other siblings. This is what Christians have believed and practiced throughout the history of Christendom. Likewise, because nations are defined hereditarily, certain individuals within a given hereditary ethnic group will have certain privileges in civil government which others outside their ethnic group will not (or should not) have. The Bible restricts civil government on the basis of ethnicity (Deuteronomy 1:13-16, 17:15; 2 Samuel 5:1 [cf. 1 Chronicles 11:1]; Jeremiah 30:21). In like manner, men, not women, are given authority over their families (1 Corinthians 11:3, 14:34; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-20). This provides ample evidence that the God-ordained order for humanity is not egalitarian, but hierarchical and rooted in the hierarchy of the Trinity. God didn’t do this to punish us, but revealed these hierarchical relationships for our benefit. When we attempt to remove these distinctions in rebellion against God, we heap judgment upon ourselves, and society necessarily suffers as a result.

This worldview contrasts starkly with the atheistic materialistic worldview described above. In an atheistic world, inequality has no ordained meaning or purpose, so it must be eradicated if we can establish anything approaching human dignity. From a Christian perspective, inequality is designed and used by God in accomplishing His purposes in history; therefore inequality does not need (and ought not) to be eradicated as something that is wrong or sinful. Certainly there is suffering that the Law seeks to ameliorate through charity.² But the goal of this charity is never to achieve equality, but rather to establish others’ self-sufficiency and to demonstrate the immense and incomprehensible charity God extends to humanity. Likewise, a Christian doesn’t need a false notion of equality to establish human dignity. Human dignity is derived not from equality, but from our creation in the image and likeness of God and our dominion over all His creation (Genesis 1:26-28).

When we consider the nature of judgment and eternity, the issue of earthly inequality is placed in its proper perspective. We acknowledge that the righteous, regardless of their station in this life, will inherit the world and reign with Christ forever; therefore we can easily determine that inequality, to the extent that it is even problematic, is ultimately of no great concern. Faithful Christians who are poor or unfortunate in this life will be blessed beyond all comprehension in the next life. Instead of worrying about prosperity in this life, the promise of eternal life enables us to store up our incorruptible treasure in heaven. An issue that cuts to the core of the debate over kinism is the question of race idolatry. Kinists are frequently accused of viewing ourselves or our race as the absolute pinnacle of human worth or value. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am entirely aware that there are scores of people who are more talented, accomplished, and fortuitous than myself, and a good many of these people are members of different races. No one individual (barring Christ, of course) is superior to all others in all regards, much less is one race superior to another race in all regards. This doesn’t negate the reality of inequality, nor does it suggest that inequality is something Christians are meant to eradicate.

Teleology-Based Ethics

We have seen that the nihilistic void left by Darwinism is naturally filled by equality-worshiping, secular humanist ethics, and we have likewise seen that because Darwinism tends towards atheism, it promotes moral relativism. Yet an additional moral criticism can be even more forcefully made against Darwinism: that it specifically negates the particular moral duties we have which are based on our design. Even if Darwinists could refute the objection that materialism makes all morality relative, this argument would stand independently.

We have a number of moral obligations which are extremely intuitive (though these intuitions become more suppressed and muddled by the day) but which nonetheless cannot be reduced to a utilitarian calculation (or any other atheistic scheme of ethics). For example, parents ought to love their children with a higher love than they love other children. Similarly, men have a moral obligation to behave masculinely, just as women have a moral obligation to behave femininely. Again, all the moral obligations of Christian sexual ethics are grounded in God’s design. And perhaps most intuitively, we ought not to obliterate natural distinctions like race and gender. These are all moral duties which are, in some sense, grounded in an intentionally crafted design plan formed in the mind of God. Without such divine intentionality, we can use wisdom in avoiding harmful consequences related to this – “if I don’t fornicate, I’ll avoid STDs and be happier”; “if I care for my children more than for others, things will generally go better in the household”; and so on – but we could never say that such actions have intrinsic moral value one way or the other. We could say, for example, that sodomy is immoral insofar as it produces evil consequences, but we could not say that it is intrinsically wrong. Consequently, even if some sort of morality could exist in a materialistic, Darwinian framework, a great number of our most precious and conscientious moral obligations require teleology and thus require the Lord as our Designer.

Since these duties require teleology to be intelligible, the Darwinistic upheaval of teleology necessarily leads to an ethic which denies all these design-based moral duties. If we are not truly designed to operate a certain way, there is no reason to suppose that the traditional family has any intrinsic moral value. Similarly, we would have no reason to suppose that men and women ought to behave in fundamentally different ways, having different gender norms in society. We would have no reason to suppose that children ought to obey their parents as an intrinsic moral duty (and the same goes for citizens and civil government), as the obligations related to authority would also be undone by Darwinism’s assault on teleology. We would, in short, achieve precisely the egalitarian morality which has now consumed the West. Modern ethical views see all duties of patriotism to one’s own people as “racist,” all duties attendant to gender as “sexist,” all duties of sexual ethics as “homophobic,” and on and on. This rising of a false morality has occurred in large part as a natural consequence of the materialism of Darwinism.

Ironically, this is especially true when we understand how these design-based obligations impinge on race in particular. In the same way that family members have a teleologically grounded obligation to especially love their own family, to value their well-being in some higher way than they would value others’, so also we have such an obligation to our own “kinsmen according to the flesh” (cf. Romans 9:3). This is an enormous point to be made against Ken Ham and the “racism is Darwinism!” crowd: the moral doctrines of kinism – that we ought to live among our own people, that we ought to marry within our own people, that we ought to love our own people foremost – all absolutely require the teleology which Darwinism centrally denies. The “racist” views which Ham and Co. repudiate are so immensely far from being Darwinistic, that it is actually the Darwinists whose logical progression is the moral views which Ham believes are central to Christianity! Darwinism entails the intrinsic moral permissibility of full-blown racial integration and mass miscegenation, not the historic Christian opposition to these things. This point cannot be overstated, and it is yet another reason why Ham’s creationism would be much better served if he spent his time and effort falsifying the mainstream pseudo-scientific opinions on race rather than regurgitating it.

The Darwinian Progression Towards Antiracism

It is, nevertheless, a curious thing that Darwinists would naturally become opposed to “racism.” If their central claim is the vast hereditary interconnectedness of all living things, then we would expect them to pay very close attention to racial differences. If their central scientific concern was the minute biological changes from one life form to another, then surely they would be cognizant of the obvious biological differences between the human races! Hence there seems to be a strong sense in which Darwinism would indeed lead to racial realism, or “racism” as Ham calls it.

There are several reasons to contest this. First, there is a significant difference between the belief that races exist (descriptively) and the belief that racial distinctions carry moral value (prescriptively). As Nil Desperandum writes, these are two related though distinct elements of “racial essentialism.” It would be quite possible for Darwinists both to believe that race is real and to deny that there are any teleologically-based moral duties accompanying race, and it is primarily the latter contention which so deeply offends our modern world. Hence, while Darwinists could reasonably believe in racial realism, they would not strictly be logically bound to advocate for the racial-moral principles of kinism. However, such Darwinian racial realists could possibly take a moral path of genuine racial hatred and aggression – one which fully accepts nature as “red in tooth and claw” and advocates for worldwide racial warfare, leaving survival to the fittest. Such a perverse and monstrous morality could be an appropriate moral inference from Darwinian materialism once racial realism is accepted, but still, we can make two responses against this:

(1) This nihilistic ethic of worldwide war, insofar as it remained truly materialistic, would still see full-blown racial integration as intrinsically morally permissible, and hence still align with the egalitarian ethic which is today so pervasive. It would still be egalitarian and “antiracist” in this sense. The Darwinian racial realist could posit some pagan view which upheld the ethic of warfare while still attributing moral value to racial solidarity (and thus repudiate the moral permissibility of integration), but at that point he would clearly be rejecting the materialism towards which Darwinism naturally tends.

(2) The moral outrage of this warfare ethic would not at all imply that the appropriate moral balance is to be found in the view which denies that the races even exist. Clearly, a different way to avoid this extreme ethic, and the obvious way, is to accept the moral principles of kinism. In case Ken Ham wishes to pump intuitions about “survival of the fittest” in order to get people on board with his race-denying agenda, he should realize the false dichotomy he is establishing.

Hence, one reason why the Darwinian focus on nature would not lead towards “racism” is because, even if Darwinists affirmed the physical reality of race, they would not be bound to accept the moral principles associated with it. But this leads us to a second point, which establishes why Darwinists would naturally become race-deniers. While the physical reality of race does not strictly entail the existence of moral principles associated with race, nevertheless there is a certain connection between the two; and because we live in God’s world, our mind will naturally make these connections, being led to believe in certain designed-based obligations upon our apprehending some physical reality. This is why, for example, the rise of racial realism among young men today often creates in their mind affections for nationalism and traditionalism. Precisely because of this connection, egalitarians have a deep-seated motive to preserve their moral views by denying that race exists in the first place. As a belief in race naturally tends towards moral beliefs concerning race, so these moral beliefs cannot be comfortably denied apart from evidence that race is merely a social construct. Thus, even though we would expect Darwinists to have a keen eye on the natural world and thus on racial differences, we can understand why the Darwinist would be led to suppress the truth in unrighteousness and deny that races even exist. The human heart has a remarkably powerful capacity for doing so.

There is yet a third remark to make about the curious Darwinian progression towards antiracism, and it is conclusive. Independent of the above two points, it stands to reason that the only reason Darwinists would naturally become racial realists is because race is indeed real. Notice above how I mentioned why we would expect Darwinism to naturally lead to racial realism: if Darwinists kept a keen eye on the natural order, then they would tend to notice racial differences. But this all presupposes that racial differences are indeed part of the natural order, not a figment of man’s imaginations. Hence, even if we, as kinists, can speculate upon the reasons why Darwinists would not naturally be led to agree with our own racial views, none of this argumentation could possibly be used by Ken Ham to conclude that “racism” is Darwinian. In order to make such an argument and seek to explain the curious but observed tendency of Darwinists towards egalitarianism, Ham would first need to premise that racial realism is itself true!

This last point should well summarize the various absurd arguments of Ham and best explain the various intuitions which his “racism is Darwinism” arguments seek to churn. There is indeed a certain connection between racial realism and Darwinism, for any Darwinian will naturally focus upon human biodiversity if he is at all honest, yet that all presupposes that there really is such biodiversity. This is exactly why a belief in racial distinctions vastly predated Darwin and did not depend on him. The absurdity would be to suppose, as Ham does, that Darwinism contains some strange motivation to fabricate evidence for racial distinctions, as if the theory of evolution depended for its credibility on additional evidence which it would have to explain! There simply is no reason to suppose that racial realism (or its moral corollaries) would naturally emerge from or be dependent on Darwinism, and there is plenty of reason to suppose that the racial egalitarianism of today is thoroughly the product of Darwinism’s materialism. Ham is fighting for the wrong side and hopelessly grasping at straws.

Conclusions

Recall that in his article on race, Ken Ham approvingly quotes evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould to the effect that, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Moreover in this brief audio clip Ham states, “The teaching of Darwinian evolution gives people a basis to justify their racist attitudes about certain groups of people.” Ham has asserted that Darwinism naturally leads to the evil commonly referred to as “racism.” The reality is that Darwinism does not serve as a foundation for “racism,” but rather as the foundation for nature and design-hating egalitarianism.

From the foundation of Darwinian evolution and materialism came secular humanism, which pursues equality due to its denial of biblical anthropology and eschatology. Equality is promoted as an attempt to fill this void and provide a rationale for human dignity, and it is also the natural consequence once all teleology-based morality is denied. Like all non-Christian belief systems, secular humanism as built on materialism is not internally consistent. Even if material and social equality could be achieved, we would still all amount to nothing more than a glorified constellation of molecules in this worldview. When we die, we are simply dead. Nothing we do or value has any lasting meaning or purpose. Thus there really is no foundation for human dignity after all, and the campaign for equality becomes a quixotic campaign for something just as meaningless and valueless as any other cause that we could decide to pursue.

The ascendancy of secular humanism in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries has pushed equality to its logical conclusion. Indeed, virtually all issues of contemporary social liberalism boil down to an issue of equality. Wealth and income redistribution exist for the purpose of making people more economically equal. Abortion and gay marriage exist for the purpose of making gender irrelevant and making men and women functionally equal in society. Miscegenation and integration are promoted with a goal of making the races equal and rendering racial differences and distinct national identities irrelevant. Democracy is predicated upon the equality of all people in the aptitudes of making competent political decisions. At its core, equality as a social principle aims at removing traditional distinctions and creating a society in which people become viewed as interchangeable parts. This is why traditional conservative M.E. Bradford remarked that social and political equality is “the antonym of every legitimate conservative principle.”³

Solomon critiques this inevitably nihilistic materialism in the book of Ecclesiastes. Over and over again, Solomon endeavors to find meaning in life, but everything he investigates fails because of life’s transient nature. Everything that we value in and of itself is shown to be meaningless or vain, as we will die and whatever we leave behind will fade and wither. Solomon attempts to find meaning in hedonistic pleasure, yet this fails when he realizes the fleeting nature of life and the diminishing material value of what he seeks to accumulate. It is even pointless to seek for meaning in the distinction between humanity and animals, since we go the grave together (Ecclesiastes 3:18-20). Life’s meaningfulness is derived from the transcendent God of the Bible, who created and sustains us. Ultimately He will judge everything that has happened in history when He will reward good and punish evil (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). It is because of this that Christians do not need to take recourse in abstractions like absolute equality to make life meaningful. A Christian can and should acknowledge the inequalities that exist in nature by God’s design, with the knowledge that God will judge each individual person based upon the talents, abilities, circumstances, and opportunities that he had during his lifetime. Atheism has no such hope. To an atheist, nothing exists besides matter floating around in space until entropy finally makes all biological life impossible.

Lacking any foundation for meaning or purpose, and denying the intrinsic teleology of the universe, atheists have focused their energies on creating social, economic, and political equality. This is why equality is the foundation of secular humanist morality. Ken Ham is very wrong when he alleges that Darwinian evolution is the foundation for “racism,” for Darwinian evolution has, to the contrary, inevitably resulted in egalitarian morality. These moral implications are precisely why secular universities unanimously endorse Darwinian evolution as well as equality, diversity, and affirmative action; and the fact that Ham sides with them in their racial egalitarianism simply shows how much he has this issue completely inverted. Indeed, Ham sides with the Darwinists in many ways:

• He co-opts the Darwinian appeal to percentage genetic commonality (e.g. that humans and sea sponges share 70% of the genetic code)
• He glibly cites the opinions of uninformed, mainstream secular sources to disprove racial realism
• He argues that the church is “behind the times” racially, even claiming that evolution in the churches is the reason why (?)
• He fully accepts the egalitarian morality towards which Darwinism naturally tends, and rejects the kinist morality which is inherently anti-materialistic and thus anti-Darwinist

If Ken Ham and other creationists are serious in their efforts to turn back the corrosive effects that Darwinism has wreaked on Western society, then they need to understand just how vastly mistaken they are when they assert that our concept of race is derived from Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution has played a major role in bringing about the West’s modern obsession with equality. Only when we rediscover our Christian roots and its hierarchical basis for society based upon the Trinity will Darwinism and atheism finally be defeated.

Tweet