Evolution is INHERENTLY racist, Darwin didn't invent it he merely applied it

Racism is implicit in the theory of evolution.  Darwin didn't invent it, he merely found a theory to account for it.  The theory is full of holes but since there's no way to prove it or disprove it that's not recognized.

It was commonly held by Europeans and Brits that the cultural differences they'd seen among the various tribal peoples around the world were really biological differences, differences of substance rather than differences of accident of time and place, differences that defined peoples as inherently inferior or superior.  I'm not up enough on that literature to know if perhaps some were regarded as not human at all, but I wouldn't be surprised.  At least they must have put them on that Linnaean tree in various biological "stages" of evolution, degrees of humanness.   There was that ridiculous "science" of phrenology that compared different human skulls to show their evolution from something less than human to the human.  This idea still persists in the notion of "hominids" that they've pieced together from bits of bone, but they refuse to recognize this as racist in essence.  It's just Science don't you know. 

This view of the human spectrum simply fitted in with the ideas of evolution that were already accepted among those who had rejected God for the supposed infallible standard of human reason.  Hard not to laugh at that, but they believed it -- and sadly, most still do.  The devil had done his work well.  We love to be gods and find our greatness in ourselves rather than in a God we are required to worship and bow down to.  Oh how lovely He is when you know Him though.

So anyway, all those ideas were already there.  Racism was already accepted in the culture, and already intrinsic to the ideas of evolution that were floating around.  Well, clearly, they'd reason, if there are human beings at such different levels of civilization and accomplishment as they could see from their explorations of the world, then there must be some sort of biological principle that explains such differences.  Their bias was MATERIALISTIC, hence biological.  It must not have occurred to them that it was culture that made the difference among the various tribes of humanity, and specifically that it was the CHRISTIAN culture that had raised Europe to its level of civilization.  I'm sure there were Christians who saw this but even the Christians in the scientific arena were getting things all wrong based on a biblical standard so it probably wasn't many.

And Science was all the rage, you know, Science is what overturned the idea of God in the first place:  We can explain everything from a materialist perspective, there is no evidence for anything supernatural, blah blah blah.  So of course the people with a scientific bent, the naturalists like Darwin and Wallace, were looking for the principle that would scientifically establish WHAT THEY ALREADY BELIEVED about the different varieties of not only animal life but human life. 

The biological assumption was already solidly in place, the hierarchy of human groups was already solidly in place, they'd been around the world and taken careful copious notes about animal species and human "species" as they thought of them.  All that remained was finding that biological principle that would justify it all.

Well, both of them found it, as it were, that is, they both came up with the Likely Story of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races.*  As Darwin came to it, he inferred it from Domestic Selection, that is, from what breeders from farmers to pet owners had known for millennia, that you can direct the expression of traits in animals by "favoring" them or keeping them from breeding with animals with traits you do not desire, and can create amazingly wonderful new breeds by this simple method.  Darwin argued this from his experience with breeding pigeons.  He simply extrapolated from that known effect to the possibility that nature itself must have ways of "selecting" different biological expressions by the mere fact of "favoring" those better able to survive and reproduce.

Now, from a strictly biological point of view, all that means is that races or breeds of any living thing become established through their natural biological advantage, through their natural biological ability to survive and reproduce given their genetics and their environment.

And of course once you've decided that human beings are just animals in various stages of development you apply the same formula there. It's a racist formula in that context, of course, and that needs to be recognized.   Evolution is INHERENTLY racist.  The THEORY itself is inherently racist.  You can't help but think of all living things as on some hierarchy of development -- even if you don't accept the idea of upward progress.  You still have to think of us as all BIOLOGICALLY different in some fundamentally crucial sense.

This of course flies in the face of a BIBLICAL view of humanity which defines us as all descended from Adam and Eve, all brothers and sisters racially.  There never was any evolution, that was the brainchild of the anti-God rationalists.  Darwin didn't invent it, he merely gave it scientific validation. 

God created all life to VARY, He didn't put any of it on a hierarchy.  The "races" are varieties, breeds, etc. This includes humanity in our strictly biological life as well.  No two human beings are exactly alike and we do create "races" when groups of us go off and occupy isolated parts of the world and marry only within our group, which creates a unique racial type. 

We see a wonderful diversity of biological forms, not a ladder from inferior to superior.  In this fallen world some fail to thrive and die out.  That is ONLY because this world is fallen, because death entered with the entrance of sin and God made animals subject to the curse same as human beings.  For our sake.  So all life is subject to diseases and deformities and many are subject to predators, and different environments can be hostile.  Had the Fall never occurred we'd have myriads of beautiful variations of all living things, all happily thriving.  Period.

I don't feel I've yet said this as well as it needs to be said. 

====
*  Just have to mention here that my own favorite argument against evolution, which I've argued in many posts here, is that what happens genetically when you have any kind of selection is that the possibility of further evolution is reduced.  Whether the selection is domestic or natural, when any breed is isolated and inbreeds within its own gene pool, this very process, including natural selection itself, but ANY form of selection, REDUCES genetic possibilities, in fact the very creation of new breeds REQUIRES a reduction in genetic possibilities.  So that if this trend continues, as it does in domestic breeding programs, further reducing and refining the gene pool of the breed, which can also happen in the wild when successive populations become more and more isolated from their former population, what happens is that evolution becomes LESS AND LESS possible.  The very processes that bring about variations eventually lead to the genetic inability to create more variations.  "Evolution defeats evolution."