The Theory of Evolution is Racism

I did not say that my opponent's definition was inaccurate, just that we must understand that for a thought to be racist it must include both elements. There must be the belief that there are differences in characteristics and that these characteristics lead towards superiority. While the definition provided is accurate there are several others that better define the phenomenon. For a few examples: A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. (Random House Unabridged) The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races. ("racism." WordNetï¿½ 3.0. Princeton University. 08 Sep. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com...;) The belief that some races are inherently superior (physically, intellectually, or culturally) to others and therefore have a right to dominate them. In the United States, racism, particularly by whites against blacks, has created profound racial tension and conflict in virtually all aspects of American society. Until the breakthroughs achieved by the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, white domination over blacks was institutionalized and supported in all branches and levels of government, by denying blacks their civil rights and opportunities to participate in political, economic, and social communities. ("racism." The American Heritageï¿½ New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005. 08 Sep. 2008. http://dictionary.reference.com...;.) A characteristic present in each one of these definitions is the belief of total superiority or intrinsic superiority based on mere belief and not fact. Again, as my opponent concedes, the definition of superiority in racism extends beyond physical characteristics, as both character and ability are not merely physical manifestations. This further shows the weakness of the argument against evolution. Genetic evolution merely concerns itself with genetically inheritable traits. It does not make assumptions about culture and character that exist beyond the spectrum of genetics. Furthermore, my opponent claims that man was originally dark skinned and as they left Africa and migrated into north the skin color lightened. He would claim that these changes made this new man superior and the next step up the evolutionary chart, however it is not the claim of evolution that this new lighter skinned man was ‘superior' in all ways to the darker skinned man. Merely that they possessed genetic traits that were found to be desirable. Additionally, as man continued north it became unnecessary for him to have the darker skin, so this unneeded trait lessened. Likewise, the trait that led to sickle-cell anemia was bred out of the population as people with sickle-cell were more likely to die to it where as in areas still plagued by malaria sickle-cell was less of the concern than malaria and those who were immune or resistant to malaria were more likely to live. Again, to reiterate, my opponent claims that seeing white skin as an adaptation is obviously racist, but it in no way implies superiority of a race or sub group of the species human, it merely states that different groups possess different traits to best suit their survival in a given climate at a given time. The narrow view as Evolutionary Theory as a mere ladder that goes in one direction is also a misrepresentation. According to evolutionary theory the same group of animals left in two different climates with two different sets of evolutionary pressures may evolve in two very distinctive ways eventually becoming two distinctly different species. This does not mean that one group is superior to another, in fact if both groups were uprooted and placed into a third environment it is impossible to predict which group would thrive as it would be a function of their existing traits and how well they are adapted for the third climate. As a brief point of clarification, the lack of facial hair among the Native Americans ranging from Alaska down into South America is believed to occur because they are, evolutionarily speaking, recent transfers to these new climates. Evolutionary changes are extremely slow, this is also why the White colonists in South Africa and India did not undergo any evolutionary changes during their short time there. Finally, my opponent claims that his last two arguments from round one are not the genetic fallacy. However it is a classic textbook example. To quote from "Reasoning and Writing, From Critical Thinking to Composition" by Donald L. Hatcher and L. Anne Spencer: "The genetic fallacy is committed when one attacks a position by attacking the origin or genesis of the argument. … [An] example of this type of fallacy occurs when capitalists attack Marx's arguments against capitalism by pointing out that Marx himself lived off the money provided by his wealthy friend Friedrich Engles. Whether … Marxism is a reasonable position has nothing to do with the lives of those who present the ideas." This exact same type of attack is the one leveled by my opponent. By claiming people with clear racist agendas used the Theory of Evolution incorrectly to support their argument he is attacking the theory based on the beliefs and lives of the groups of people who practiced these racist thoughts, not on the merits or flaws of the theory of Evolution.