Obama Campaign Sparks Discussion About Race

Of course, probably all readers are already aware of the news, and in fact we’re reporting on a particular topic tangential to the election covered by LiveScience:

The construct of race was never more than a poor model. Now it’s become worse than useless. It’s divisive and destructive.

Dave Brody, listed as executive producer for LiveScience, writes on his use of software to run permutations of Barack Obama’s face—itself a representation of the spectrum of human “traits” and the essential meaninglessness of the concept of race:

What prevents, say, an Ethiopian Muslim from having a child with a Japanese Jew? Tradition? Belief? Geography? Yep, all that and more. But not biology. In our genes, modern humans are all of one type. The notion that there’s a “race gene,” or even a definitive cluster of racially genetic material that might predispose a baby to any trait other than fuzzy placement in a wide range of two types of melanin (red and brown skin pigment), is not now scientifically supportable.

In part 2 of the story, Brody continues breaking down the concept of “race” with such punning insights as “Down at the cellular level, every one of us is a person of color: a “hue-man.’” He points out that “[r]ace . . . exists only in the heart of the racist.”

The notion that there’s a “race gene” . . . is not now scientifically supportable.

Brody’s points about the superficiality (literally) of race are quite accurate, and they match up with what Answers in Genesis has been teaching for years. Science offers direct evidence of what we already know based on the Bible: we are all of one race, and the genetic factors that create different skin/hair/eye color are account for very few of the differences in genetic makeup from individual to individual.

Let’s not forget, however, that it is the Bible that has always taught that we are one race (Acts 17:26), all descendants of Adam through Noah—whereas Darwinism was substantially racist in its first century, with many evolutionists even attempting to “scientifically” show that some races were closer to humanity’s supposed apeman ancestors.

Meanwhile, in a related touching-on-politics entry from LiveScience, columnist Christopher Wanjek weighs in on former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s attack on (allegedly wasteful) U.S.-funded fruit fly research conducted in southern France. What really stood out to us, though, was this aside at the beginning of Wanjek’s column:

Palin is an easy target when the topic turns to science.

Of course, Palin is an easy target when the topic turns to science. Reportedly a believer in biblical creationism, Palin is fine with the notion that Noah still had sharp enough eyesight at age 600 to identify male and female fruit flies and bring them onto the ark.

We hope readers have no trouble spotting Wanjek’s inaccuracy, but for those who can’t: Noah didn’t take fruit flies—or any other insects—on the Ark (at least probably not intentionally, since insects do not fit the “breathing” criterion [revealed by the Hebrew text] of animals God had Noah bring on the Ark; some insects no doubt stowed away on the Ark and others likely survived the Flood on floating vegetation mats).

Time after time, people poke fun at the historicity of the Ark by referencing how many millions of insect species Noah had to take on board. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that the headline of Wanjek’s column refers to “misdirected criticism,” since so many of those who attack the Ark account apparently haven’t conducted even basic research into what the Bible teaches!