Scientific American: Denying evolution is white supremacy

We've seen that Scientific American, once a respected journal, is in decline. There are increasing numbers of articles that promote a certain ideological view, a woke one. This article by Allison Hopper has some science, but it is mixed with politics in such toxic ways that it almost seems funny. This article is full of false claims and unsupported assumptions, it is not based on logic, and its main claim is false for two reasons. If you are still a subscriber to this rag, you may write Laura Helmuth or cancel your subscription.
Laura has had a distinguished career prior to taking over the journal. She has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Berkeley and has edited or written articles for Science, The Washington Post and Smithsonian. It is a mystery to me why she allows this type of tripe in her magazine. She is less to blame that the author, who has no coherent argument. Hopper's goal is to show that American creationism does not have anything to do with religion. Instead, Hopper is trying to prove that white supremacy is the heart of creationism, and not belief in God.

This is a Three-Hankie Article:

Over the past 12 years, I have provided plenty of evidence to show that creationism is rooted in religious belief. For conservative Jews and Christians, belief in the Bible and for Muslims belief in the Quran, both books have their own creation stories. One, I have never met a creationist that wasn't motivated by religion. All creationist organizations, including Discovery Institute, are fundamentally religious beliefs, which view evolution as a threat to God's belief. This is obvious enough that no one with a bizarre agenda can deny it.

Well, Hopper does deny it. Hopper claims that the root of creationism is white supremacy, not religion. Here's the logic connection that led her to this conclusion.

a. Two falsities can be linked if they are found in the Bible.

b. Hopper focuses on two falsities: Biblical creationism, as limned by Genesis, and the claim humans began with white skin, and then God, marking Cain's descendants, made them black.

c. The descendants of Cain who are supposedly black have been historically depicted as bad people and then as people with black skin, since the mark that is given to them is black skin.

d. The Bible is a statement of white supremacy because humans were created in God's image and started out as white but some people became black.

e. In fact, our ancestors were African, so even the Bible story is incorrect.

f. The story of white supremacy comes from Genesis (4.15), which also tells the creation story.

g. Ergo creationism is a result of white supremacy.

(Remember, I said below that the argument for white supremacy is based on religion!)

This argument has many fallacies. One is that two negative things in the Bible can be linked, especially if they are found in the same section of the Bible. This allows one to claim that the bad thing that caused the other. There are many mass killings in Genesis. These include the Flood-induced extermination of humankind, and the destruction of the Cities of the Plain including Sodom, Gomorrah, and other cities. The Old Testament is also full of genocide. This logic could lead us to conclude that creationism is a result of a desire to kill. Hopper also links creationism to the deadly effects of black people. .

Hopper also adds another bit of evidence to prove that white supremacy has led to creationism. (I don't make it up).

The Klan supported the initial wave of legal battles against evolution in the 1920s.

That's quite a strong evidence, right? Even though many people didn't support the Klan, they still wanted to see evolution in the 1920s.

Hopper doesn't have any other evidence. Hopper does not claim that creationism is a result of a desire for white supremacy. She only depicts our African ancestors occasionally as white people, and this also shows misogyny, since they are often men. This claim actually argues that white supremacy is the root of our conceptions about evolution!

Are you kidding me? Here are some excerpts from Hoppers article.

I am trying to expose the myth that evolution denial is about religion. It is actually a form white supremacy that perpetuates violence against Black bodies and segregation. . . . White evangelical creationism holds at its core the mythology about an unbroken, white lineage that goes back to Adam and Eve with light skin. According to literal Christian Bible interpretations, white skin was created in God's image. Dark skin is more complicated and has a different origin. According to the Bible, Cain's curse or mark for killing his brother resulted in darkening the skin of his descendants. Many congregations in the U.S. used this Cain story as proof that Black skin was a punishment. The myth of a line of white descendants segregates Black heritage from Black bodies. This mythology has deadly consequences for Black people in the real world. The fake news epidemic that fuels the racial division in America is part of fundamentalist interpretations of Scripture.

Ms. Hopper, please refrain from using the term "black bodies" for black people. Although the phrase may be au courant, it dehumanizes blacks in the same way as slaves dehumanize enslaved persons. What are the deadly effects of creationism upon black people? Are Hopper referring to Hopper literally or metaphorically?

But I digress.

Hopper is correct that the Genesis account in the Bible is creationist. It says that Adam was created in God's image. But does it tell us what Adam's color was? It doesn't seem so. Although it is assumed that he was white and Scripture does not address this issue, Although Hopper claims it confidently, we don't know if the earliest human ancestors are black. However, humans split from their closest relatives in Africa, bonobos and chimps and developed black pigmentation. This is because humans likely evolved from chimp-like primates (as naked monkeys were outliers), while chimps have white skin. According to Encyclopedia Brittanica:

The Chimpanzees have a long, white beard and are usually covered in brown or black hair. The skin is usually white, except for the feet, hands and face which are all black. Younger animals might have pinkish or whitish faces. The foreheads of older females and males often become bald, while the backs turn gray. This is a Forbes photo, but there are many more.

NBC News: Old and young chimps

It is possible that hominins after they split from the chimp lineage were born with light skin. Later, natural selection led to darker skin. Hoppers argument is a fallacy if this is true. It doesn't matter because evolutionists, anthropologists, and energetic anti-racists such as Hopper don't care about the skin color of the first hominins. I'm not saying that the hominins were the first to be born white. I also don't believe in white supremacy. Our later hominin ancestors were certainly darker. I'm merely stating that the early hominins could have had a gray or white skin. Hopper cannot be certain, and she doesn't have any evidence to support that claim.

It is possible that hominins from Africa developed dark skin after several millions of years. This means that they were likely to be the ones who gave rise to fire, tools and other basic elements of culture. Hoppers argument is not supported by me. Even if that were true, the big mistake she made was not to assume that the first hominins are black. She instead connected white supremacy, which is supported by some religionists, with creationism. The former gave rise to the latter.

Hopper makes this argument. Because she has a goal.

My hope is that science will be more accessible to all if we can make the connection between racism and creationism clearer.

You're going to have a lot of fun doing that! Creationism is a religion. Accepting evolution would be a rejection of the faith of many Biblical literalists (roughly 40% of Americans). You won't change their minds by telling 'hey! Because the story of Adam & Eve is a story of white supremacy, your creationism is actually a manifestation white supremacy.

Was it really true that Cains' descendants were black? Hopper believes they were and that is how the story has been interpreted by many. But let's read the Good Book (King James version; Genesis 4:15).

The Lord spoke unto him and said, "Consequently, whosoever slays Cain, vengeance will be taken upon him sevenfold." The Lord placed a mark on Cain to prevent anyone from finding him.

This is not a dark skin mark. I have yet to find a scholar who believes the Hebrew Hebrew means dark skin. Cain's mark was placed on him and his descendants to protect them. These verses are taken from Genesis 4, 9-16, and are again from the King James Bible.

9 The Lord spoke unto Cain and said, "Where is Abel thy friend?" He replied, "I don't know: Are you my brothers keeper?" 10 He replied, "What hast thou done?" The ground screams at me the voice of thy blood brothers. 11 Now art thou cursed by the earth, for she hath opened its mouth to receive thy brother's blood from your hand. 12 When thou tillest, the ground will not yield unto you her strength; thou shalt be a fugitive or a vagabond in the earth. 13 And Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is more than I can bear." 14 For I have been driven from the face the earth by thee; and from thy side will I hide; and I will be a fugitive, and an earthbound vagabond; and it shall be so that all who find me will slay me. 15 The Lord spoke unto him and said, "Whoever slays Cain, his sevenfold vengeance will be upon him." The Lord placed a mark on Cain to prevent anyone finding him from killing him. 16 Cain was released from the Lord's presence and settled in the land known as Nod, east of Eden.

God clearly gave the mark to Cain to protect him. Therefore, even if it was dark skin, it indicates that Cain and his descendants were protected by God. What does this have to do with Hoppers story?

Although I've spent too much time picking up additional Hoppers Swiss cheese narratives, I still have another bit of evidence to support her absurd theory. This is the historical fact that in the United States, black Americans have been more creationist than whites. Is creationism rooted in white supremacy? Haven't black people heard about it?

Below are data from a Pew Study from 2015: bars 4-6 at the top.

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen. What a shame the great have fallen!

In closing, I would like to point out that Hopper is wrong when she claims that the roots for creationism lie not in religion but in white supremacy. The greatest irony of her argument is that the white supremacy argument is rooted, yes, in the Bible. Even her main thesis is flawed. No matter how you look at it, creationism, regardless of its origins, is a result of religion.

In the unlikely event that they decide to delete this article, I have archived it here.