A recent news editorial I read suggested that religion and evolution should be placed on a shelf side by side. It was argued that one can accept both, creation and evolution, as explanations of our origins. Is this possible? Can we mix the two together? Apparently not, for the writer seemed to want to choose, cafeteria style, just what he wanted and did not want from the Bible. It is always amazing when an opponent of the Bible criticizes the Scriptures, just how ill-informed he usually is about the Word of God. Additionally, in this article the author gave his reasons for preferring the evolution model to creation, but they were anything but scientific.
His beliefs, in a nutshell, are that evolution teaches the human race sprang up in Africa, and therefore, the dark skinned peoples are the “father of mankind.” He further states that the Bible teaches that the blacks are a result of Noah’s curse placed upon his youngest son, Ham, in Genesis 9:18-27. Preferring the “father role” to the supposed “forever servant unto mankind” scenario, He states, “Any white who believes in the Hamitic curse as Jefferson did, is not only a racist midget, (I assume he means bigot here), but an insufferable a**.” (His words. Actually, we find this language “insufferable” for one claiming proclivity toward intellectualism.) Further, he states, “Any black who believes such rubbish is a disingenuous fool to a fault.” We realize that many are passionately devoted to their beliefs, particularly on this subject; however, to promote this type of “band-wagon” rhetoric is unacceptable. The writer is in effect saying by such language, If you do not believe the way I do, then you are either a “racist” (if you are white) or a “fool” (if you are black). So much for easing racial tensions! We prefer a more controlled approach to the subject, namely, “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord …” (Isaiah 1:18).
The article is in error on a number of points. First, it affirms that the curse was leveled upon all of Ham’s descendants. Scripture plainly states that when Noah awoke and knew what his “younger son” had done, he said, “Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” For some reason, we are not told why Noah levels his “curse” upon his grandson Canaan, who may have been in some way involved in the sin with his father Ham. (The term, “Younger son,” can also mean grandson.) The point here is that the curse falls upon only one of Ham’s sons and not the rest of his descendants. His other three sons, Cush, Mizraim and Put settled in areas where predominantly darker skinned people are now found, especially Cush. So, geographically speaking, there is some evidence from Scripture to believe that Ham’s descendants were probably darker skinned. But, the curse, which was actually a prophecy, was leveled upon Canaan. Whether we like it or not, as a matter of biblical history, this is exactly what happened. After the children of Israel entered into the land of Canaan, they destroyed or subjugated all of Canaan’s descendants. The Bible says the reason for this was because of their wickedness, not because of their skin color. Furthermore, since the coming of Christ, all the races of man have been brought together in him. Contrast the so-called “hamitic curse” with the Abrahamic blessing. “And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen (unbelieving nations) through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed” (Galatians 3:8, Emphasis mine, sps.).
Second, it is reckless to make such statements as “God did not create blacks, Noah did” or “Those aboard the ark were lily white.” The Scriptures plainly state, “[God] hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). So according to the Bible, God made all the races of mankind. Further, this would account for the physical differences between the races being extremely minor. This is an observable scientific fact. For example, if one has a blood transfusion in the hospital, it matters not one whit whether the blood comes from a black man, white man or any color in between. All that matters is that the blood type (A, B, AB or O; + or -) is the same and that it is disease free. This suggests that the races are more closely related than is commonly believed today among many.
As to the inhabitants of the ark, the Bible is completely silent as to the color of their skin. Modern paintings depicting the ark and its inhabitants notwithstanding, we simply do not know. This writer believes that all the races of mankind came from those eight souls saved in the ark, and given this, it is unlikely that Noah’s sons’ skin color was “lily white.” Using a punnett square, a geneticist can explain to us that the entire range of human skin color — from darkest black to “lily” white — can be achieved in just one generation if the paired genes are in the proper sequence. Most likely they would have been brown skinned to produce the variety of skin colors present today, but the Scriptures are silent as to this. It is our fervent wish all people (black, white and every color in between) would get over the differences in our skin color. As a matter of significance, we are actually all the same color; we just have different levels of melanin in our skin. The real differences between the races are more cultural than biological.
Third, we find it ironic that one would prefer the evolution model as an explanation for the arrival of the human family simply because of the “father” role it places upon his race (skin color). The Bible states that man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26), and that includes all the human race — black, white and every color in between. Further, Eve’s name was given to her because she was the “mother of all living” (Genesis 3:20). Conversely, Darwin states that man shares his pedigree with the “lower” primates (gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys etc.). Are we missing something here? One would think that the more noble sounding origin for mankind, black or white, is that of the creation account; namely, God made man, in his image and for a divine purpose. This, as opposed to man being the eventual result of millions, perhaps billions, of years of mindless natural selection and evolution, seems to this writer to be more desirable. If the criteria for deciding on one’s origin model is merely one’s personal preference, (and it should not be), then the Bible’s explanation still seems to be the more honorable of the two.
Fourth, one makes a tremendous error to think that the theory of evolution and creation can somehow be mixed together to form a better, less offensive theory of origins. The article suggested that we should put evolution and religion on the same shelf together. Let us try it to be fair. The theory of organic evolution was postulated to explain how everything got here through purely natural means — that is, without any divine help. Creation, on the other hand, explains the origin of the world and life quite differently by referring the reader of the Bible to God, the author of all the universe. Like mixing oil and water, the two do not homogenize well! They are radically opposing viewpoints that have oftentimes caused, and will continue to cause, intense friction and debate between their respective adherents.
As a creationist, this writer believes the scientific evidence all around us (the fossil record, archaeology, etc.) points to creation. We realize that the evolutionist also views the same evidence, and believes it supports evolution. This is his right, as it is our right to believe what we will. But though we may disagree with another’s conclusions, it is not acceptable to degrade oneself to the level of mud slinging and name-calling, no matter how frustrated we might be with another’s convictions.
Too, one would be wise to make a more thorough study of the Scriptures before he draws a conclusion from them. Logic clearly states that if one begins with a faulty premise, his conclusions will inevitably be faulty. Such is the case with the aforementioned article.
