rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Are There Really Different Races?

by Ken Ham


November 29, 2007

What if a Chinese person were to marry a Polynesian, or an African with black skin were to marry a Japanese, or a person from India were to marry a person from America with white skin—would these marriages be in accord with biblical principles?

A significant number of Christians would claim that such “interracial” marriages directly violate God’s principles in the Bible and should not be allowed.

Does the Word of God really condemn the marriages mentioned above? Is there ultimately any such thing as interracial marriage?

To answer these questions, we must first understand what the Bible and science teach about “race.”



What Constitutes a “Race”?

In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most people, when talking about “races,” would be referring to such groups as the “English race,” “Irish race,” and so on. However, this all changed in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Darwinian evolution was (and still is) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others.


Leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”

The Australian Aborigines, for instance, were considered the missing links between the apelike ancestor and the rest of mankind. This resulted in terrible prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines.

Ernst Haeckel, famous for popularizing the now-discredited idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” stated:

At the lowest stage of human mental development are the Australians, some tribes of the Polynesians, and the Bushmen, Hottentots, and some of the Negro tribes. Nothing, however, is perhaps more remarkable in this respect, than that some of the wildest tribes in southern Asia and eastern Africa have no trace whatever of the first foundations of all human civilization, of family life, and marriage. They live together in herds, like apes.


Racist attitudes fueled by evolutionary thinking were largely responsible for an African pygmy being displayed, along with an orangutan, in a cage in the Bronx zoo.

Indeed, Congo pygmies were once thought to be “small apelike, elfish creatures” that “exhibit many ape-like features in their bodies.”

As a result of Darwinian evolution, many people started thinking in terms of the different people groups around the world representing different “races,” but within the context of evolutionary philosophy. This has resulted in many people today, consciously or unconsciously, having ingrained prejudices against certain other groups of people.

However, all human beings in the world today are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens.

Scientists today admit that, biologically, there really is only one race of humans.

For instance, a scientist at the Advancement of Science Convention in Atlanta stated, “Race is a social construct derived mainly from perceptions conditioned by events of recorded history, and it has no basic biological reality.” This person went on to say, “Curiously enough, the idea comes very close to being of American manufacture.”

Reporting on research conducted on the concept of race, ABC News stated, “More and more scientists find that the differences that set us apart are cultural, not racial.

Some even say that the word race should be abandoned because it’s meaningless.” The article went on to say that “we accept the idea of race because it’s a convenient way of putting people into broad categories, frequently to suppress them—the most hideous example was provided by Hitler’s Germany. And racial prejudice remains common throughout the world.”

In an article in the Journal of Counseling and Development, researchers argued that the term “race” is basically so meaningless that it should be discarded.

More recently, those working on mapping the human genome announced “that they had put together a draft of the entire sequence of the human genome, and the researchers had unanimously declared, there is only one race—the human race.”


Personally, because of the influences of Darwinian evolution and the resulting prejudices, I believe everyone (and especially Christians) should abandon the term “race(s).” We could refer instead to the different “people groups” around the world.


The Bible and “Race”
The Bible does not even use the word race in reference to people, but it does describe all human beings as being of “one blood” (Acts 17:26).

This of course emphasizes that we are all related, as all humans are descendants of the first man, Adam (1 Corinthians 15:45),15 who was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27).16

The Last Adam, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:45) also became a descendant of Adam. Any descendant of Adam can be saved because our mutual relative by blood (Jesus Christ) died and rose again.

This is why the gospel can (and should) be preached to all tribes and nations.

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

Great post.
I have a friend in Tucson that is black and one day he was being harassed by a racist. I said to the racist that Larry and I were of the human race, what race are you, canine?
He called me all kinds of names just to show what he really was.
The Bible says to treat all people equally.

But there is the Blond race of which I used to be part of when I had hair. :-D :roll: :oops:

Joe3 Loc: The Villages, Fl

You wrote: Personally, because of the influences of Darwinian evolution and the resulting prejudices, I believe everyone (and especially Christians) should abandon the term “race(s).” We could refer instead to the different “people groups” around the world.

Even if you refer to groups as "people groups" or as "races" the underlying prejudices would remain the same. It is necessary to change the inter person, through Christ, not just which words are used.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Agreed...a person MUST be changed internally by having a "heart change" by God...no argument there....

This article is just pointing out that racism isn't a biblical concept but an Evolutionary one. "people groups" doesn't have the "evolutionary baggage" associated with it...it merely marks different groups...not "less developed races"...the whole CONCEPT that fuels racism is evolutionary development...


By the way; the words above are Ken Ham's words...not mine, though of course I agree with him.

Joe3 Loc: The Villages, Fl

By the way where are you located in W.Va. ?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I'm in Bridgeport. That's about 40 minutes south of Morgantown.

Joe3 Loc: The Villages, Fl

Just wondering, We are from down river in Huntington. Interesting thread, thank you.

photophile Loc: Lakewood, Ohio, USA

Excellent research and reasoning rpavich.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Not me.....Ken Ham but you're right, it's sound reasoning.

TrainNut Loc: Ridin' the rails

I do not see anyone arguing against this. That is amazing. :thumbup:

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Well..lol...it's the "biblical" perspective so I'd wager many many people here on the 'hog arguing against it :)

People can be persuaded by bad arguments and not persuaded by sound arguments...but that doesn't mean that they aren't good arguments :)