#WeAreAllMadeInTheImageOfGod

The idea that humanity is descended from apes is, of course, a fundamental tenet of the theory of evolution. However, if you really want to base your worldview upon this premise, when you take a look around the world and see the huge diversity and “variety” within humanity, you are going to find it hard to get away from this nagging implication: that the variations of humanity are representative of different parts of the evolutionary tree. Why wouldn’t they be? This in turn has another equally nagging and troubling implication: Some parts of humanity are likely to be more evolved than others.

This is, of course, not to suggest that racism began with the publishing of On the Origin of Species. It certainly didn’t. Nor does it mean that most Darwinists are racist. They are not. Nor does it mean that there are no creationists who are racist. There are. This is because racism is not a theoretical problem; rather it is a sin problem. But given that racism is something which is clearly immoral and which repulses most people, is it not odd that most people choose to believe in a theory which—taken to its logical conclusion—inescapably suggests that humanity is made up of different “races” and therefore that some of these “races” must be more evolved than others?

The month of April saw a couple of very different methods of tackling racism, one of which you will probably have heard about, the other you may not. The one you will no doubt heard of is that of Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, who was banned for life from the National Basketball Association, may be forced to sell his interest in the team, and was fined $2.5 million after a recording became public of him asking a woman not to associate in public with black people nor bring them to games. Wow. His remarks were repugnant for sure, but the “NBA police” sure know how to go over the top in their handling of such a situation. Clearly they forgot to add “tarring and feathering” to the punishment in order to make their point even clearer. Might there be more effective ways to deal with this sort of thing?

I understand that soccer is not exactly the American sport of choice, and so it may be that you are not aware of another incident that took place in a game between the Spanish teams Villareal and Barcelona on April 27th. Spanish soccer crowds have something of a reputation for having racist elements within them, with black and Latino players often complaining about the abuse they have to put up with. European soccer authorities have come up with all sorts of initiatives to combat this kind of thing, including banning supporters who chant racist slogans, fining teams who fail to clamp down on racism, and even anti-racism advertising campaigns. This sort of thing has had some effect—there is certainly less racism in European soccer than there was 10 or 20 years ago—yet it certainly hasn’t eradicated racism, as the following incident shows.

According to reports, one of Barcelona’s Brazilian players, Dani Alves, had been on the receiving end of some pretty nasty abuse throughout the game. At one point, the ball went out of play and he ran over to the corner of the field to take a corner kick. As he put the ball down and prepared to take the kick, someone in the crowd threw a banana onto the field beside him to apparently make the point that he is a monkey.

He could have reacted with outrage and walked off the field, as some players have done when this sort of thing has happened before. He could have turned around and vented his indignation at the banana thrower and those who had been taunting him. But instead he did something completely unexpected and in its own way brilliant. He bent down to the field, picked up the banana, peeled it, took a bite and carried on with the game as if nothing had happened.

As you might expect, the banana incident quickly went viral and social media exploded with people praising Alves’ quick thinking in dealing with this situation in a completely unexpected and humorous way. The theme then continued with more black and South American soccer players and celebrities posting pictures of themselves on Facebook and Instagram eating bananas. Since the incident, the humble banana has gone from being a symbol of racism to a symbol of defiance and mockery of the racists and so, in one 10-second incident, Dani Alves did more to shame the racists, than any amount of diktats from governments, soccer clubs, or the NBA could ever do.

As an aside, there is something really important that Christians can learn from this. We can often get extremely hot under the collar when our faith is attacked, but, as we probably learned somewhere, bullies are looking for a reaction. They goad because they want us to be goaded. Yet incidents such as this show how humor and a shrug of the shoulders can sometimes have a far greater impact on diffusing a situation or showing the intolerance of our opponents than an indignant reaction ever will.

But there is more to this. A day after the banana incident, another Brazilian soccer player posted a picture on Instagram of himself and his son eating bananas. Many people responded with similar pictures and messages: “We are all monkeys.” “We are all the same.” “Say no to Racism.” The hashtag #WeAreAllMonkeys went viral.

Clearly #WeAreAllMonkeys is a sarcastic jibe mocking the racists. So far as it goes, this is all well and good. But there is of course an uncomfortable truth behind all this. Where do those who make monkey noises and throw bananas at sports stars get this idea from? Where did they get the idea that people with dark skin are monkeys? Try this:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

That was, of course, Charles Darwin writing in The Descent of Man. And just in case he didn’t make the monkey connection clear enough, among his many other statements which clearly operated under the assumption that non-whites were less evolved, he also had this to say:

With some savages, however, the foot has not altogether lost its prehensile power, as shown by their manner of climbing trees.

Well, well! So Darwin believed his theory implied that black people were less evolved than white people, and he made claims that would probably make Donald Sterling and the Spanish banana thrower blush with embarrassment. Of course, at this point, the Darwinist rolls his eyes at yet another attempt by a creationist to associate Darwinism with racism. Unfortunately for them, despite trying hard to disassociate the theory from its obvious implications, to be frank, their attempts haven’t exactly been very convincing. And why would they? The idea that humanity evolved from apes by graduated changes contains in its very nature the idea that modern humanity didn’t necessarily arise from the same stock. Darwin understood that clearly, even if some of his disciples don’t get it.

In his book The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins described the idea that “each of us shares a common humanity with members of other races” as “a deeply unbiblical idea that comes from biological science, especially evolution.” This statement ought to have won some sort of Orwellian doublethink prize for reality inversion. What does the Bible actually teach on this subject? It teaches that all humanity is descended from two fully formed humans (see Genesis 1:26-28) and that “He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth …” (Acts 17:26). It also teaches that God’s salvation makes no racial distinctions: “After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (Revelation 7:9). No racism there then.

What does evolutionary science teach? It teaches that humanity evolved from single-celled creatures, via apes. If this were true, it would not only be entirely possible, but absolutely probable that humanity as we see it today did not arise from the same two parents, nor did it arise in the same place nor did it arise at the same time. Which implies what? Well, that’s not difficult to work out is it? Some are more evolved than others!

The irony of the sarcastic hashtag #WeAreAllMonkeys is that the idea that black or Latino people are closer to the apes than Caucasians is taken straight from a theory which has been taught in schools, propagated by the media, and believed by millions for a century or so now. Most of those who would condemn Donald Sterling and the banana thrower, will believe the theory to be true. Thankfully most of them have not understood the implications of this theory in the way that its originator clearly did, but why would it surprise us if, after being taught this, some people actually did become consistent with the worldview they have been taught, and came to believe—as Darwin did —that the “races” or “varieties” of humanity represent different parts and therefore different stages of the evolutionary tree.

Ultimately, there really is only one proper response to racism. It is not throwing the book at basketball team owners for their repugnant remarks, and it is not to be found in mocking those who hold racist views. Rather, it is to affirm the Biblical doctrine that all people are created in the image of God, and so possess a divinely bestowed dignity which makes all people worthy of honor (1 Peter 2:17), and it is to reject the repugnant view that humanity ever was related by blood to apes. I’m not really into Twitter, but if anyone has the inclination to do this, might I suggest a new hashtag to counter #WeAreAllMonkeys and show why racism is truly repugnant. How about #WeAreAllMadeInTheImageOfGod?

Rob Slane lives with his wife and five home-educated children in Salisbury, England. He is the author of The God Reality: A Critique of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion, contributes to the Canadian magazine Reformed Perspective, and blogs on cultural issues from a Biblical perspective at www.theblogmire.com.