Only One Race: The Human Race

Only One Race: The Human Race

Thomas Allen

The notion that only one race, i.e., the human race, exists is globalist propaganda — be it from the Catholic Church of years gone by, which many gullible or ignorant Protestants still believe, or today’s globalist elite. It meshes seamlessly into their nightmare of a one-world state with its one-world government and one-world religion. To achieve this globalist goal, humanity must be homogenized into a monochromatic, mongrel man with as little individual distinction as possible. 

Proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” which is also known as the “unity of man doctrine,” are, in essence, calling Martin Luther King a liar. King’s agenda was based on the existence of multiple human races. Fervently, he advocated giving Negroes special privileges. If the Negro race does not exist, it cannot receive special privileges. The existence of the Negro race with special privileges necessitated the existence of other races. (For more on King, go to https://tcallenco.weebly.com/social-issues.html.)

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” assert that all the races (or people groups, as many prefer) came into being following the Tower of Babel dispersal.  Only two actions could have caused the formation of the human races: the miraculous or the natural. The miraculous requires God to create the races. Although Acts 17:26b supports the miraculous approach, they reject it. The natural requires Darwinian principles, i.e., evolution, although they reject evolution.  (See “Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race” and “Analysis of ‘How did all the different “races” arise (from Noah’s family?’” by Thomas Allen.) Curiously, these adherents deny the existence of the various human races while describing how they came to be and acknowledging that various races or people groups have recognizable features.

Most likely, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject the miraculous approach because it interferes with their unity of man doctrine. If God created the human races, then obviously, He would want them preserved. Consequently, they would have to support policies that protected them: segregation and separation. However, their unity of man doctrine requires, even demands, integration, miscegenation, and amalgamation: policies that destroy them. Thus, they promote the demise of the races that God created.

Often, proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” like to ask people who reject their doctrine of the unity of man, “Is there a superior race?” or similar questions. (If races do not exist, a superior race cannot exist.) They seem to expect as a response, “Yes, the White or Aryan race,” or words to that effect. They do not expect or accept any person, especially a White, to identify the superiority of another race.

For example, in general, Negroes are superior to Whites as boxers. They have the innate advantage of thicker skulls and, therefore, can better withstand blows to the head. Also, they have longer arms and can, thus, hit a White target before a White gets close enough to hit them.

Another example is that Blacks in general are superior to other races at playing basketball. The dominance of Black players in the National Basketball Association proves this superiority. Approximately 72 percent of NBA players are Black. Likewise, since this example conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man, they also reject it.

One more example that the proponents of “only one race, the human race, exists,” reject is the superiority of Blacks over Whites in surviving and reproducing in the lower latitudes. Because their pigmented skin prevents ultraviolet light from destroying vitamin B-12, which is necessary for reproduction, Blacks are superior to Whites in surviving and reproducing in low latitudes. Nevertheless, these proponents must likewise find this example unacceptable because it also conflicts with their doctrine of the unity of man.

Adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” are also proponents of the races-are-social-construct school. To any extent that distinguishable features of various people groups (races) exist, they are social constructs. They certainly are not biological.

As shown above, adherents of “only one race, the human race, exists” reject everything, including all facts, that contradict or interfere with their doctrine of the unity of man. 

Copyright © 2025 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Do Human Races Exist? –Main Article

Do Human Races Exist?

Thomas Allen

Do human races exist? I discussed this issue in comments to two different articles. First, I discussed it with RN1 in comments to an article in “We Love Trump Report”: “Boston Mayor Defends Sending Out Invitations For Segregated Holiday Party” by Russell Bartlett at https://wltreport.com/2023/12/14/boston-mayor-defends-sending-invitations-segregated-holiday-party/. Second, I discussed it with RN2 in comments to an article in The New American: “Burundi’s President Calls for Public Execution of Homosexuals”  by Angeline Tan January 2, 2024, at https://thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/burundis-president-calls-for-public-execution-of-homosexuals/#comment-6359761180. I have changed the pseudonyms of the commenters to protect the guilty. The discussions are in the appendices.

If human races do not exist, how can racial discrimination occur? How can a nonexistent race discriminate against a nonexistent race? Further, if races do not exist, then White supremacy and White privileges cannot exist because the White race does not exist. Yet, progressives and liberals who are the most adamant in the notion that races do not exist are the most vociferous at decrying White supremacy and White privilege.

Most progressives and liberals claim that the various human races are social constructs and do not exist genetically. Many conservatives, such as RN1 and RN2, act as though they agree with them. Conservatives do so by asserting that only one race, the human race, exists; races are merely artificial constructs created by evolutionists. Most proponents of the racial social construct theory are racial nihilists, who believe that human races do not exist or if they do, they are irrelevant. 

According to the racial social construct theory, genetics does not determine a person’s race; societies’ arbitrary choice and selection determine it. Consequently, if races are social constructs, then merely abolishing the White racial construct can abolish White privileges and White supremacy.

The best answer that racial nihilists, like RN1 and RN2,  can give to the question of racial discrimination is that the races exist as social constructs, and, therefore, they and their names are fluid and can change at a whim. (In a limited sense, this is true of everything in nature. The names of everything in the universe can and do change from one culture to another and from one era to another. However, the substance or essence of the thing whose name is changed remains the same.) However, contrary to their belief, the genetics of the races is fixed and cannot change — unless the theory of evolution is correct.

Moreover, many White conservatives, like RN1 and RN2, pride themselves on denying the existence of races or at least not noticing a person’s race. They declare that only one race exists: the human race. Are these conservatives ignorant, stupid, liars, or self-deceivers? Even the nonwhites whom these conservatives seem to be trying to placate openly admit the existence of genetic races. These conservatives are racial nihilists who are practicing the new morality of sacrificing their own race, the White race (a.k.a. Aryan, Adamite, or Homo albus), on the altar of humanity. (See "Old Morality – New Morality” by Thomas Allen.)

Although racial nihilists, most of whom are Whites, claim that human races do not exist, nearly all nonwhites claim that they do exist. Thus, nonwhites show more intelligence and honesty concerning race than do White racial nihilists. (See “Views on Race” by Thomas Allen.)

People who assert that only one race exists are calling Moses and God liars. God  through Moses declares in Deuteronomy 23:2, “No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh.” (See “Commentary on Deuteronomy 23:2” by Thomas Allen.) If only one race exists, mongrels cannot exist. Since, according to the Bible, mongrels exist, then more than one race must exist.

Also, Jeremiah writes, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). (See "Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race" by Thomas Allen.) The implication is that a leopard cannot change its spots. God created the leopard the way it is; genetics fixes its appearance, character, temperament, etc. Likewise, the Ethiopian cannot change his skin. That is, when God created the Melanochroi and the other races, he genetically fixed their physical appearances and genetically influenced their intelligence, character, temperament, etc. Therefore, the racial characteristics of the human races are fixed and cannot change. They are immutable because God fixed them when he created the races. (Although both RN1 and RN2 give God the credit for creating man, they do not give Him credit for creating the various human races. Instead, they resort to Darwinism, although they deny that they are doing so.)

Nearly all race deniers like RN1 and RN2 confuse race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural. Almost everyone can distinguish between a Norwegian and a Swede, who are Aryans (Whites) of the Nordic racial type, on the one hand, and a Zulu and a Tswana, who are Negroes (Blacks) of the Bantu racial type, on the other hand. Anyone who claims that he cannot tell the difference is either brain-dead or a liar. However, almost no one can distinguish between Norwegians and Swedes based on physical appearance. Likewise, almost no one can distinguish between Zulus and Tswana based on physical appearance. Norwegians and Swedes are ethnicities of the Aryan race, and Zulus and Tswana are ethnicities of the Negro race. Thus, races and ethnicities are not the same. Ethnicities are subdivisions of a race and are based on culture. (See “Some Comments on Race and Ethnicity” by Thomas Allen for further explanation of the differences between race and ethnicity.) 

Furthermore, a person’s race can be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his skeleton (see “Skeleton Differences of Human Races” by Thomas Allen). Moreover, a person’s race can also be identified with a high degree of accuracy from his blood (see “Of One Blood” by Thomas Allen). Also, races differ significantly in nonphysical characteristics (see "Nonphysical Racial Differences” by Thomas Allen).

Human races are as genetically fixed as are human sexes. (Nevertheless, human races [species] can crossbreed and produce hybrids, as can some species of Canis [the dog, wolf, coyote, and jackal] and Bos [the gaur and the gayal, the American bison and the yak, the American bison and the wisent, the American bison and the domestic cattle, and the wisent and domestic cattle].) Although RN1 and RN2 recognize some of the genetic differences between the races, they reject the existence of the human races.

Moreover, RN1 and RN2 and people like them claim that human races do not exist because the Bible does not specifically use “race” in the biological sense. If they are consistent, they would argue that fungi and bacteria do not exist because the Bible does not mention them. Yet, these people accept the existence of fungi and bacteria. Many things exist that the Bible does not mention. Because the Bible does not mention “race” does not mean that human races do not exist.

Both RN1 and RN2 are racial nihilists and consider themselves conservatives. While denying that human races exist, they claim that they can distinguish between the human races.

RN2 displaces far more intelligence than does RN1. RN1 can only repeat catchphrases that he has heard or been taught. He believes that only one race, the human race, exists. He shows little understanding of why he believes that human races do not exist other than he has been told that they do not exist. 

At least, RN2 can explain why he believes that human races do not exist. Although he is wrong, he can offer a plausible argument for his belief.

RN1 criticizes Mayor Wu of Boston for not inviting Whites to her party. Then, he has the audacity to declare that “we’re all the same race. The Human race.” If we are all of the same race, then her party could not have been racially segregated, as RN1 and the article assert. How could she apologize to Whites if Whites do not exist? Likewise, like most people of his kind, RN1 confuses race, which is genetic, with ethnicity, which is cultural.

RN2 rejects the notion that God created the human races. According to him, Darwinian principles, such as mutation, natural selection, and adaptation, explain the origin of the various human races. Although he denies that he is an evolutionist, he uses evolutionist principles. Furthermore, he claims that evolutionists created biological classification. Yet, the first known classifier was Adam, who named the animals. Moreover, modern-day biological classification preceded Darwin’s theory of evolution by about a century. 

Although RN2 states that the principle of “each after its kind” is correct, he implies that it does not apply to humans. If true, we should see East Asians producing Negroes regularly. Despite asserting that human races do not exist, he claims that he can distinguish between East Asians and Negroes.

Like many Christian “creationists” who use evolutionary principles to explain the origins of human races, RN2 prefers using “people groups” instead of “race.” Many evolutionists prefer “geographical populations” instead of “race.” 

Moreover, he errs when he states that “species” is a term that evolutionists invented in the fourteenth century. Since the theory of evolution came into being in the nineteenth century, evolutionists could not have invented a term that came into being four hundred years earlier.

Also, when RN2 asserts that God does not prohibit mongrels in His assembly, he errs. As quoted above, Deuteronomy 23:2 clearly states that God does not allow mongrels in His assembly. RN2 claims that this verse means that pagans are not allowed in God’s assembly. Thus, he translates the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as “pagan.” He is the only person whom I have encountered who gives such a translation. Most others erroneously translate the Hebrew word for “mongrel” as a person of “illegitimate birth,” “illicit birth,” “illegitimate or unlawful marriage,” “forbidden marriage,” “born out of wedlock,” or a similar phrase.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

Part 2: Appendices.

More social issues articles.

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Jeremiah on the Fixity of Race

Thomas Allen

Jeremiah 13:22–24 (emphasis added):

22 And if thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts discovered, and thy heels made bare.

23 Can the Ethiopian [Cushite] change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

24 Therefore will I scatter them as the stubble that passeth away by the wind of the wilderness.

The implication is that an Ethiopian cannot change his racial characteristics, and a leopard cannot change its spots. Jeremiah is using irony to show that the people whom he is addressing have become so accustomed to practicing evil that they cannot and do not want to change their ways and do good. They are as fixed in their evil ways as an Ethiopian is in his racial attributes, and a leopard is in its spots. The chance of them becoming good is on the same level as the chance of an Ethiopian, i.e., a Melanochroi, changing his biological racial characteristics, which is never. If the racial traits of a Melanochroi can change, then Jeremiah’s analogy fails. Moreover, a leopard can change its spots. Consequently, Jeremiah has declared that the biological attributes of the races, or more accurately, species, of humans are immutable.

The attributes of a species are fixed; they are not fluid and do not change over time.  According to Jeremiah, the biological races of humans, as opposed to cultural and ethnic races, are fixed, and, therefore, they should be considered species. Thus, several extant species of humans exist: Aryan (Homo albus), Turanian (H. luridus ), Negro (H. niger), Melanochroi (H. brunus), Indo-Australian (H. australis), and Khoisan (H. khoisanii).  Lumpers have mistakenly grouped all of these species into a single species, contrary to Jeremiah. (Whom do you believe? Jeremiah, whom God inspired, or modern-day lumpers and Darwinists.) Also, several species of humans are extinct; they include Neanderthal (H. neandertalensis), Homo erectus, giants (H. gigantus), e.g., Nephelium and kindred people mentioned in the Bible, Denisovan man (H. denisova), and Florisbad man (H. heidelbergensis).

(According to Darwinism, species are fluid; they are not fixed. Over time, one species can change into another species. Jeremiah’s analogy, which requires that the characteristics of the various human races, or more correctly species, be immutable, is incompatible with Darwinism. Moreover, under Darwinism, a leopard can change its spots.)

Appendix 1. Melanochroi.

The King James Version and many other translations translate the word “Cushite,” which is a literal translation, as “Ethiopian.” Others use “Cushite.” Regardless of which word is used, both are referring to a Melanochroi. A few erroneously translate it as “a black man, “a black Moor,” or “an African.”

Melanochroi are predominately found in Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, coastal Iran, southern Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Libya south of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica, Chad, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Algeria south of the Atlas Mountains, and central and southern Morocco.

Appendix 2. The Superiority of Hybrid Theory.

Some people argue in favor of interracial breeding using the “superiority of hybrid theory,” i.e., the superiority of mixed-racial people. Thus, the offspring of parents of different races is superior to the parent races in most, if not all, aspects — intelligence, beauty, strength, health, character, temperament, personality, etc. Even if true, which it is not, the advantages of hybrids are lost in the next generation. The offspring of hybrids are inferior not only to the hybrid parents but also to the parent races of the hybrids. For this reason, hybrids are not bred.

The notion of the superiority of hybrids comes from agriculture. People who promote this theory observe that some crosses of chicken breeds result in superior egg layers. However, if these hybrids are bred, their offspring are inferior to the hybrids and the original parent breeds. Likewise, with hybrid seeds, which result in some superior traits, such as disease resistance and yield, their descendants are not planted because they produce plants inferior to the hybrids and the parents of the hybrids. Furthermore, the proponents of this theory overlook two things. First, many hybrids are discarded before a hybrid with desirable traits is found. Second, unlike human hybrids, which are developed by random breeding, selective breeding develops livestock and seed hybrids. Consequently, the superiority of hybrid theory is highly flawed.

The proof that the superiority of hybrid theory is invalid is Kamala Harris. She is a hybrid — a cross between a Melanochroi (an Asian Indian) and a Negro (a Caribbean Black). Obviously, she is inferior to the average Negro and the average Melanochroi.

Copyright © 2024 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Was Paul an Evolutionist?

Thomas Allen

    If creationists who claim that Adam and Eve are the parents of all the various kinds (races, species) of humans are correct, then Paul is an evolutionist, a Darwinist. In 1 Corinthians 15:39, he writes, “All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes.” These so-called creationists interpret “one flesh of men” to mean that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah and his family.
    First, let us see what some commentators have to say about this verse. In A Commentary on the Holy Bible (1939), J.R. Dummelow, editor, writes, “There are many different forms of animal life; so there may be of human life.” Thus, because many different species of animals exist, so may several species of men exist.
    Everett Harrison, editor, suggests in The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962) that this verse and those following indicate that a believer’s race will be identifiable in his resurrected body. Moreover, based on Harrison’s comment on this verse, one could support Paul being either an evolutionist or a creationist. He comments, “In the light of the theory of evolution, this is an interesting statement [,i.e., ‘All flesh is not the same flesh’].” Paul could be suggesting that each flesh (kind, species) initially came into being independently of all other flesh. This is creationism and is most likely what Paul intended. Conversely, he could be suggesting that all flesh came from one flesh, which is evolution, Darwinism.
    In One Volume New Testament Commentary, C.B.S. writes, “There are different varieties and forms of bodily life.” Thus, he implies that different forms (kinds, species) of men exist. Likewise, Beet writes, “. . . the immense variety, and variety of kinds, of living bodies.” Consequently, there are several kinds of humans.
    With the possible exception of Harrison, these commentators in their commentary on this verse neither support nor reject evolution or creationism. They merely note that a large number of kinds of animals exist. So, by implication, several kinds of humans exist.
    If all human kinds have one common pair of parents, then, according to Paul, all beasts have one common pair of parents. Therefore, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descendants of one pair of parents. How does a frog turn into a mouse if an evolutionary process is not involved? Likewise, the same is true of birds and fishes; they are descendant from a common pair of parent birds or parent fishes.
    Creationists cannot have it both ways. If different kinds (fleshes) of beasts have different initial parents, then different kinds (fleshes) of humans have different initial parents. If “one flesh of men” means that all humans have a common initial pair of parents, then “another flesh of beasts” means that all beasts have a common initial pair of parents. That is, all mammals, reptiles, and amphibians are descended from the same initial parents. Likewise, so are the various kinds of birds and fishes descended from the same initial parents respectively. Evolution means different kinds descending from common initial parents. Thus, if all kinds of human descended from Adam and Eve, evolution is proven.
    Monogenism, which is what the Church has traditionally taught, supports evolution, Darwinism. According to monogenism, all human kinds (races, species) descended from a common pair of parents, Adam and Eve. Polygenism supports creationism. According to polygenism, each human kind descended from a different, unique pair of parents. Thus, if creationism is true, Adam and Eve are the parents of only one human kind. If (theistic) evolution is true, then Adam and Eve are the parents of all human kinds.
    Biblical creationism is described as “after its kind.” Polygenists claim that each flesh (kind) of beast and each flesh (kind) of man has its own initial pair of parents (flesh) and, thus, is after its flesh (kind). Therefore, creationism is polygenism.
    On the other hand, monogenists claim that all flesh (kind) of beasts comes from the same initial flesh (kind) and all flesh (kind) of men comes from the same initial flesh (kind). Therefore, monogenism is evolution, i.e., Darwinism. If the monogenistic claim that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve is correct, evolution is proven.
    In The Disaster Darwinism Brought to Humanity, Harun Yahya, a Muslim,  argues that Darwinism is responsible for Social Darwinism, communism, fascism, Nazism, Marxism (from which come fascism and Nazism), two world wars, and many other evils of the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century. It is also responsible for colonialism, imperialism (Islamic imperialism existed long before Christian imperialism or Darwin’s birth), the prohibition against interracial marriages (although interracial breeding is a form of genocide), segregation (although segregation preserves the integrity of the races whereas integration genocides them), and eugenics. Moreover, although capitalism has been retreating since World War I, Darwinism is responsible for the advancement of capitalism (because of the stereotypical criticism of capitalism: individualism, competition, and profit-making and because it is void of charity and cooperation, or as Marx asserts, because capitalism is a vital, energetic, productive engine, yet it is egoistic, individualist, and rights-obsessed, which makes it morally evil.) Nevertheless, Yahya acknowledges that these evils existed before Darwin, but Darwin gave them a scientific veneer to justify them and make them more acceptable. If Darwinism is guilty of these evils, then the Church is just as guilty, if not more so, than Darwin. With its monogenistic teachings, it was preaching Darwinism centuries before Darwin was born. Likewise, Islam with its monogenistic doctrine is also guilty.
    When Paul writes, “there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts,” etc., does he mean that all human kinds have a common initial pair of parents and all beast kinds have a common initial pair of parents? If so, he is a monogenist and an evolutionist. However, if he means that each human kind has a different initial pair of parents and each beast kind has a different initial pair of parents, then he is a polygenist and is not an evolutionist.
    Of course, the argument depends on what is a “kind.” Is a kind a class, order, family, species, or subspecies? Some creationist evolutionists, to use an oxymoron, start with the family; that is, they identify a kind as a family. For example, all species of the cat family are decedents of an initial pair of felines, i.e., a feline kind. Obviously, evolution is involved if all species of cats are descended from a common ancestor. If these creationist evolutionists are correct, then evolution, Darwinism, is proven. The disagreement between creationist evolutionists and secular evolutionists is the starting point and the time required for one species or kind to evolve into another. What secular evolutionists claim that takes millions of years to achieve, creationist evolutionists claim that it takes only a few generations. If kind is not equivalent to a species, or even a subspecies (many of which used to be a species in their own right), then Darwinism becomes necessary, and evolution is proven.
    Does only one human kind exist or do several kinds or species of humans exist? If taxonomists had followed the techniques used to identify species of animals for identifying species of humans, they would have identified several species of humans (and some did identify several human species). However, because of centuries of Catholic monogenic indoctrination that all human kinds descended from Adam and Eve, all human kinds were lumped into one species. (Now, political correctness has replaced Catholic indoctrination. However, with the disdain and hatred of the White race, even by Whites, one wonders why the White race is not classified as a different human species or even a different genus to prevent it from contaminating and degrading the other human races.)
    Today, the primary technique used to identify a species is the ability to produce fertile offspring. As a result, many former species have been lumped together as one species. Because of using this criterion as the almost sole criterion for identifying a species, many former species of the genus Canis have been lumped together. However, taxonomists are not consistent is using the criterion of fertile offspring. Obviously, it is not used for extinct species. Moreover, have entomologists tried interbreeding all species of ants to see if they are really distinct species or mere subspecies of the same species? The ability to produce fertile offspring should be only one of several criteria used to determine a species — and then used more for exclusion than inclusion.
    (For a more detail discussion of polygenism verses monogenism and the classification of human kinds into several species, see Species of Men: A Polygenetic Hypothesis and Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man, both by Thomas Allen.)
    Is Paul an evolutionist? “Flesh of beasts” parallels “flesh of men.” Therefore, Paul must have meant the same thing by both phrases. Thus, if Paul means that all kinds of men descended from a common ancestor, then he would have meant that all kinds of beasts descended from a common ancestor. Consequently, he is an evolutionist. However, if by “flesh of” he does not mean descent from a common ancestor, then he does not mean that all human kinds and all beast kinds descended from a common ancestor, i.e., each human kind, race, species, and each beast kind, species, and many subspecies have a different initial ancestor.  Thus, he is not an evolutionist but is a creationist.
    Dr. Pye Smith, who was a Christian philosopher and a proponent of all human kinds descending from a common pair of parents, wrote,

If the two first inhabitants of Eden were the progenitors, not of all human beings, but only of the race whence sprang the Hebrew family, still it would remain the fact, that all were formed by the immediate power of God, and all these circumstances, stated or implied in the Scriptures, would remain the same as to moral and practical purposes. Adam would be a “figure of Him that is to come,” the Saviour of mankind; just as Melchizedek, or Moses, or Aaron, or David: the spiritual lesson would be the same. The sinful character of all the tribes of men, and the individuals composing them, would remain determined by the most abundant and painfully demonstrated proofs, in the history of all times and nations. The way and manner in which moral corruption has thus infected all men, under their several heads of primeval ancestry, would be an inscrutable mystery, which it is now, but the need of divine mercy, and the duty to seek it, would be the same; the same necessity would exist of a Saviour, a redemption, and a renovation of the internal character by efficacious grace. That the Saviour was, in his human nature, a descendant of Adam, would not militate against his being a proper Redeemer for all races of mankind, any more than his being a descendant of Abraham, Judah, and David, at all diminishes his perfection to save us “sinners of the Gentiles.” (Geology and Scripture, p. 357, Bohn's ed. 1854.)

    Thus, just as Melchizedek, Moses, Aaron, and David were figures of the Christ, who would come as the Savior of humanity, so was Adam. Adam did not have to be the ancestor of all man kinds for them to be saved.  Thus, each kind of human having a different initial pair of parents does not diminish the salvific work of Christ — unless the Israelite-identity folks are correct. (If descent from Adam is necessary for salvation, then descent from Abraham through Jacob is also necessary as the Israelite-identity folks claim. According to Israelite-identity folks, only Israelites, descendants of Jacob, can be saved. Therefore, whether all are descendants of Adam is irrelevant. Only descend from Jacob matters. Without a reliable genealogy, how does one know that he is a descendant, much less a pure descendant with no admixture of non-Israelite Adamites, Aryans, of Jacob? [Non-Israelite Aryans and Israelites are biologically the same.] Most Aryans, like Negroes, Turanians, Melanochroi, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians, cannot be saved because they are not descendants of Jacob, or at least not pure descendants.)
      Either God created each kind, race, species, of men or they evolved from a common ancestry, which is evolution, Darwinism. If the races did not evolve and God did create them, then all good Christians (and presumably good Muslims) should oppose everything that leads to their demise or destruction, including interracial mating. Otherwise, if God did not create them independently, then Darwinism and all the evils that Yahya attaches to it, including genocide, should not matter.
    If God created each race of men independently, then genocide matters. However, if the races of men evolved, then genocide per se does not matter as genocide leads to the survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, most Americans are evolutionists and do not oppose genocide per se. However, they do oppose some forms of genocide while finding other forms acceptable — only the type of genocide may matter. At least 98 to 99 percent of Americans do agree on one thing — be they liberal or conservative, progressive or libertarian, left-wing or right-wing, communist or laissez-faire capitalist, Republican or Democrat, pro-Trump or anti-Trump, pro-Clinton/Obama or anti-Clinton/Obama, globalist or nationalist, Christian or atheist, Jew or Muslim, religious or nonreligious, White or Black, or Yellow or Brown. They all agree that one form of genocide is perfectly acceptable. This form of genocide is interracial mating: breeding the races out of existence. Thus, this proves that most Americans, even most Christians who claim to be creationists, are Darwinists. (Most Americans object vigorously to the genocide of the North American Indians by disease, starvation, and mass killing. However, few Americans show any concern about breeding the North American Indian out of existence. This form of genocide has been much more effective than other forms.)
    Since a key law of evolution is survival of the fittest, no evolutionist should have any objection to genocide whatever its form. Genocide is nothing more than the application of the law of the survival of the fittest.
    Would Paul have condoned or condemned genocide in the form of interracial mating? If he were a creationist, he would surely have condemned it.

Copyright © 2023 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

The Soul

The Soul

Thomas Allen

Is the human soul immortal or mortal? Does the soul continue to exist consciously after the body dies? Or, does it die when the body dies?

There are two views of the nature of man. One is the dualistic view, which is the popular Christian view and the pagan view. The other is the holistic view, which is the Hebrew and Biblical view.

Greek, Egyptian, and other pagan philosophers claim that the soul is immortal and continuous a conscious existence after the body dies. According to the pagan Greeks, the soul is trapped in a material body. When the body dies, the soul is liberated and continuous a conscious existence elsewhere because the soul is immortal and, therefore, indestructible. Consequently, a person cannot really die; he merely transitions to another form. Death is merely the separation of the soul and the body.

The Hebrews claim that the soul is mortal and dies with the body — that is, its conscious existence ends with the death of the body. Since the soul animates the body, it dies (ceases to have consciousness) when the body dies; it not a distinct substance. When the body dies, the soul ceases its function of the animating life-principle of the body, and, therefore, it also dies. Furthermore, according to the Hebrews, the soul and body are an indissoluble unit. Moreover, man does not have a soul; he is a soul.

While the pagans teach a dualistic nature of man (the soul is immortal and the body is mortal), the Hebrews in the Old Testament teach a holistic view (both the soul and body are mortal). The pagan view asserts that the body, which is mortal, and the soul, which is immortal, are two different substances that coexist within one human being. Nevertheless, they are two characteristics of the same person. Thus, human nature consists of two entities (a body and a soul) that function independently — the dualistic view of man.

Contrasting with the pagan idea is the Hebrew. The Hebrew idea is that of an animated body, and the soul animates the body. When one dies, the other also dies. Both the body and the soul are mortal. Consequently, human nature is an indissoluble unity where the body and soul are different aspects of the same person — the holistic view of man.

For the Hebrews of the Old Testament and the early Christians of the New Testament, immortality is a gift from God given at the resurrection. Immortality is not an innate human possession as the pagans and orthodox Christians teach.

Tertullian and Origen introduce the Greek notion of an immoral soul into Christianity. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas expounded this pagan dualistic view of human nature. Consequently, the pagan dualistic concept of man became the orthodox Christian doctrine.

During the Reformation, Calvin, Luther, and most other Protestant leaders maintained that the soul was immortal. According to Calvin and Augustine, when the body dies, the souls of believers enjoy blessings in heaven while the souls of unbelievers suffer torments in hell. (However, the Anabaptists preached the Hebrew holistic concept of the soul, i.e., the soul is mortal and ceases conscious existence when the body dies.)

Adherents of the pagan dualistic nature of man believe that death is the separation of the immortal soul from the mortal body. At the resurrection, the immortal soul is reunited with the body. Today, most Christians believe in this dualistic doctrine.

Conversely, adherents of the Hebrew holistic nature of man believe the soul like the body is mortal and, therefore, dies with the body. At the resurrection, the whole person, body and soul, is resurrected.

What Is the Soul?

What is the soul? The soul is the life-giving force; it is man’s consciousness and awareness. Consequently, the soul is that part of a being that interprets the outside world through the senses. It interprets what one sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels. Therefore, the soul and not the brain is what sees, hears, tastes, smells, and feels. It is what perceives and evaluates. (Further, the soul is what gives all living creatures their life, consciousness, and awareness.  Consequently, all animals, plants, fungi, protists, and monerans have souls.)

Moreover, the soul is the seat of one’s emotions, personality, intellect, and memory. As such, it is what makes a human being human. It is that part of a person that believes, decides, reasons, judges, rejoices, sorrows, loves, hates, doubts, and the like. Furthermore, from the soul come man’s moral and religious attributes.

The soul is the mind as opposed to the brain. (Some theologians claim that the spirit of man is the mind instead of the soul. [See the last paragraph for a discussion on the spirit of man.]) Through the soul does a person perceive and understand the material world. However, the soul does not reside in the brain and has no corporal nature. On the contrary, the soul is distinct from and independent of the brain.

Although signals received from the senses are analyzed in the brain, the soul is what understands and gives this information meaning and significance. The brain merely serves as a vehicle delivering information to the soul. The soul observes and interprets the information formed in the brain.

The existence of the soul refutes materialism, and, therefore, it repudiates Darwinism and evolution. Materialists believe that the movement of chemicals in the brain controls a person’s thoughts, emotions, and actions. Blind, unconscious atoms and electrical signals cannot be the source of awareness, perception, thought, beliefs, emotions, and the like.

Some theologians distinguish between the soul of man and the spirit of man. For these theologians, the soul of man is identified with the secular exercise of an individual. The spirit of man is that part of human nature that allies with God. Also, some identify the spirit of man as what makes man a rational being. However, many treat the soul and the spirit as two names for the same entity. This article does not distinguish between the two.

Reference

Bacchiocchi, Samuele. Popular Beliefs: Are They Biblical? Berrien Springs Michigan: Biblical Perspectives, 2008.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Martin, William C. The Layman’s Bible Encyclopedia. Nashville, Tennessee: The Southwest Company, 1964.

Tenney, Merrill C., editor. The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1967.

Yahya, Harun (Adnan Oktar). Darwin’s Dilemma the Soul. First English edition. Editor Tam Mossman. Translator Carl Nino Rossini. Istanbul, Turkey: Global Publishing, 2008.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

 

Respecter of Persons

Thomas Allen

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: – Acts 10:34

For there is no respect of persons with God. – Romans 2:11

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3:28 

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. – Ephesians 6:9

And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man’s work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: – 1 Peter 1:17

Christian racial nihilists cite these verses to justify racial integration, amalgamation, and miscegenation — which God’s word condemns — and, therefore, the genocide of the races that God created. (However, nearly all Christian racial nihilists are Darwinists; they believe that the races of man evolved and, thus, were not created. This is true even of those who claim to be creationists.) Consequently, they disagree with God, who places great importance on the races (species) of man that He created. (See “Christians and Creationism” and “Fundamental Christians and Evolution” by Thomas Allen.)

Moreover, Christian racial nihilists use these verses to boost that they do not recognize a person’s race. Additionally, they promote the new morality of sacrificing the races of man on the altar of humanity.

Furthermore, Christian racial nihilists condemn stereotyping despite Paul endorsing it. Paul wrote “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons. This testimony is true. For which cause reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith ” — Titus 1:12–13.

Nevertheless, is God really a non-respecter of persons despite what these verses suggest? The Bible describes events that show that God is a respecter of persons and that He discriminates against some in favor of others.

God showed that He is a respecter of persons when He accepted Abel’s offering and rejected Cain’s. If He were not a respecter of persons, He would have accepted both offerings or rejected both offerings. (Or, was this an instance of Him acting as a respecter of offerings?)

The Noachian Flood is another example of God acting like a respecter of persons. He saved Noah and his family while letting the others drown. If He were non-respecter of persons, He would have saved all of them. (This seems to be an instance where God respected the persons who believed Him but did not respect those who disbelieved.)

Jacob and Esau are another example that shows that God is a respecter of persons. He chose Jacob and rejected Esau. This action of choosing one person, Jacob, and rejecting another person, Esau, proves that He is a respecter of persons.

When God segregated the Israelites and protected them from the plagues that He inflicted on the Egyptians, He acted like a respecter of persons. When He separated the Israelites from the Egyptians and led them across the Red Sea, He again acted like a respecter of persons. (This segregation and separation were based on ethnicity and not on character.)

Moses wrote, “No half-bred [mongrel] may be admitted to the assembly of the Yahweh; not even his descendants to the tenth generation may be admitted to the Assembly of Yahweh” — Deuteronomy 23:2. Since God refuses to allow mongrels in His assembly, He is acting like a respecter of persons. Moreover, His discrimination in this instance is not based on character or what a person does or does not do. It is based solely on a person’s genetics — something over which he has no control.

When God saves some people to everlasting life and condemns others to everlasting death, He is acting like a respecter of persons. He may judge differently than man would judge, but judging requires Him to be a respecter of persons unless all persons end up with the same results.

Whatever the verses cited about God not being a respecter of persons mean, they do not justify racial nihilism or the new morality. Christian racial nihilists err when they use these verses to justify their racial nihilism and the new morality. They are acting contrary to the Scriptures when they reject the notion of race and seek to scarify the races on the altar of humanity. They need to repent.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Fundamental Christians and Evolution

Thomas Allen

Fundamental Christians attack evolution, Darwinism, as a false science. Then, with a few exceptions, these same fundamental Christians resort to Darwinism to explain the origins of the species (races) of man.

With rare exceptions, fundamental Christians are Darwinists, evolutionists. All have the various races descending from Adam and Eve. Since nearly all fundamental Christians believe that the Noachian Flood was global and killed all mankind except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives, they believe that the species of man descended from Noah through his sons and their wives.

Consequently, like the Christian evolutionists, they ignore the biblical principle of according to its kind or after its kind, i.e., like begets like —at least so far as humans are concerned. Many believe in the fixity of every species except the human species. They reject Jeremiah’s teaching and believe that an Ethiopian can change his skin. Jeremiah declared the immutability of the races (species) of man when he said, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?” (Jeremiah 13:23a). The implication is no. Thus, Jeremiah testifies that fundamental Christians err when they maintain that all the species of man descended from Adam and Eve or from Noah through his sons and their wives.

According to the typical fundamental Christian, all the species of man descended from Noah’s sons and their wives. Nearly all of them hold that Noah’s sons were of the same race as Noah and his wife. Most seem to agree that Noah, his wife, and his sons were Aryans (Whites); nevertheless, whatever their race is, it is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

However, some fundamental Christians teach that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands. Many believe that Shem’s wife was an Aryan  (Homo albus) and Japheth’s wife was probably Aryan, although a few believe that she was a Turanian (Homo luridus). Most of this school contend that Ham’s wife was a Negro (Homo niger). Since the great sin that brought about the Noachian Flood was miscegenation (v. People of the Flood by Thomas Coley Allen, 2008), that Noah’s sons’ wives were of different races than their husbands is highly unlikely. However, if Noah’s daughters-in-law were of different races, then their races had to evolve sometime between Adam and Noah.

Most fundamental Christians believe that Noah, his wife, and his sons and their wives were of the same race. The typical fundamental Christian believes that the Aryan and probably Turanian came from Japheth. From Shem came the Hebrews, who are Aryans, and the true Arabs, who are Melanochroi (Homo brunus). The Negro came from Ham. Fundamental Christians are fuzzy about the origin of the Melanochroi — probably because nearly all of them fail to recognize this species. Usually, they lump the Melanochroi of Africa with the Negro. They lump the Melanochroi of the Middle East with either Shem, i.e. the Aryans, or the Negro of Africa. About the Melanochroi of India, nearly all of them are silent. As for the Khoisan (Homo khoisanii) and Indo-Australian (Homo australis) species, they usually lump them with the Negro.

Thus, fundamental Christians have a multitude of evolutionary occurrences. If Noah’s family are Negroes, then Ham’s family has bred true, if the Khoisans, Indo-Australians, and Melanochroi usually lumped with the Negro are ignored. Japheth’s descendants evolved into two species: the Aryan and the Turanian. Shem’s descendants also evolved into two species: the Aryan and Melanochroi.

However, if Noah’s family are Aryans, some of the descendants of Shem and Japheth have bred true; others have not. Ham’s descendants have not bred true; they have evolved into the Negro and probably the Khoisan and the Indo-Australian. Some of Japheth’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Turanians. Likewise, some of Shem’s descendants have bred true as Aryans while others evolved into Melanochroi. Why some of Japheth’s and Shem’s descendants remained Aryans and others evolved into other species is not explained.

If the fundamental Christians are correct about the origins of the species (races) of man, only a few generations are needed for one species to evolve into another species. If they are correct, why have no new species of man evolved in the last few centuries? Sufficient time has passed for new species to appear in the last thousand years, but they have not. Why have they not? Fundamental Christians do not explain. If the fundamental Christians are correct, new species (races) should be appearing frequently. (Racial crossing results in racial mongrels, hybrids, and not in new races.)

While fundamental Christians deplore evolution, they resort to it when it is needed to support their doctrine — although most would deny using evolutionary principles. Some may haggle over details, such as, they believe in microevolution, but reject macroevolution. (The difference between the two is the starting point and the time required for one species to change into another species. Microevolution usually starts at the family or genus level and requires only a few generations for one species to change into another species. Macroevolution starts with the first single-cell living entity and requires many generations for one species to change into another species. Both deny the immutability of a species, i.e., according to its kind or after its kind — like begets like. Consequently, they call Jeremiah a liar.) Thus, the fundamental Christian’s disagreement with the orthodox evolutionist is not one of principle, but the starting point and the time involved for a species to change to another species.

Copyright © 2020 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

Christians and Creationism

Christians and Creationism

Thomas Allen

[Editor’s note: The addendum was added in 2025.]

The discussion below shows that many Christians who claim to be creationists support Darwinism, that the breed-of-dog analogy fails to support the argument of all humans descending from Adam and Eve, and that the only living thing that Eve can be the mother of the Adamites, Aryans, or Whites, if Darwinism is false.

Are Christians Really Creationists?
Are Christians true creationists or are they Darwinists? Whether a Christian is a creationist or a Darwinist, i.e., an evolutionist, can be discovered by simply asking him if all the races (species) of men are descended from Adam and Eve. If his answer is yes, he is a Darwinist. If it is no, he is a creationist.
Today, most taxonomists are lumpers. That is, if two otherwise different animals can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, they should be lumped together as the same species. Thus, the dog (Canis familiaris), the gray wolf (C. lupus), and the dingo (C. dingo) used to be considered different species. However, since they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, taxonomists have lumped them together as Canis lupus. The coyote and jackal have not yet become part of C. lupus. (However, a dog can also breed with a jackal [C. aureus] and a coyote [C. latrans] and produce fertile offspring. Likewise, a wolf can breed with a coyote and a jackal and produce fertile offspring.)
Some other species that can mate and produce fertile offspring are the gaur or Indian bison (Bos gaurus) and the gayal (Bos frontalis), the American bison (Bison bison) and the yak (Bos grunniens), the American bison (Bison bison) and the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus), the American bison (Bison bison) and the domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the wisent or European bison (Bison bonasus) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus taurus or Bos primigenius taurus), the domestic horse (Equus caballus) and the Przewalski's horse or Mongolian wild horse (Equus przewalskii), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and the Bactrian camel (Camelus bactrianus), the dromedary camel or Arabian camel (Camelus dromedarius) and llama (Lama glama), the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) and the polar bear (Ursus maritimus), the lion (Panthera leo) and the leopard (Panthera pardus), the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) and the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens). Several of these interbreeding species are of different genera. Most likely, the Clymene dolphin, formerly called the short-snouted spinner dolphin  (Stenella clymene), is a hybrid species of the spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) and the striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba).
Another possible example is the red wolf  (Canis rufus) and the eastern wolf (Canis lycaon). Some zoologists believe that the red wolf and eastern wolf are really hybrids of the gray wolf and the coyote. If the red wolf becomes a hybrid, it is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act. (A true creationist would argue that the reason the red wolf appears to be a hybrid of the gray wolf and the coyote is that God created the red wolf using DNA similar to that which He used in creating the gray wolf and the coyote.)
Another example of two species mating and producing fertile offspring is the Cuban crocodile (Crocodylus rhombifer) and the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus). The Cuban crocodile has become an extremely endangered species, partly because the American crocodile and the Cuban-American crocodile hybrid are breeding it out of existence. (We are seeing a similar scenario being set up to exterminate the White race. In the United States, the American Negro has been a chief weapon in this destruction. However, the American Negro is being destroyed by being used to destroy the White race. Nevertheless, the death of the American Negro is acceptable collateral damage to rid the universe of an evil far greater than Satan: the Aryan race.)
Some creationists admit that different species can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. According to them, such interbreeding is how new species or kinds, as they like to say, came into being. For example, Anas poecilorhyncha and A. platyrhynchos are two species of ducks that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Although these two species do not normally come into contact with each other, when they do, they interbreed. Their offspring is so viable that it is recognized as an independent species, A. oustaleti.
Many Christians believe that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6:2 are angelic beings. These angelic beings interbred with human women (Adamites) and produced fertile beings, the Nephilim. Many non-Christians and New Agers also believe that angelic beings mated with humans. Since the Nephilim were alive centuries later at the time of Moses, two things are proven: The Noachian Flood was not global, and the Nephilim were fertile. Thus, angelic beings of the spiritual realm mated with human beings of the physical realm and produced fertile offspring. According to the lumper’s primary criterion for defining a species, angels and humans are of the same species.
This absurdity shows that the ability to produce offspring should not be the primary criterion for determining a species. Contrariwise, the inability to produce fertile offspring should be used to disqualify creatures from being classified as the same species, instead of the ability to produce fertile offspring being used to classify them as the same species.
Likewise, the same is true of DNA. (Do spiritual beings have DNA?) DNA should be used to exclude rather than to include. If two similar groups have similar DNA, it is because the Creator used similar DNA in making similar groups, i.e., species or kinds as many creationists prefer to use. Therefore, because Aryans, Turanians, Melanochroi, Negroes, Khoisans, and Indo-Australians have similar DNA and can produce fertile offsprings when they interbreed does not make them the same species. (Have Khoisans and Indo-Australians ever interbred and produced fertile offspring?)
One interesting aspect about using DNA to determine species is the water buffalo or domestic water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). This species consists of two subspecies: the river buffalo with 50 chromosomes and the swamp buffalo with 48 chromosomes. These two subspecies can interbreed and produce fertile offspring with 49 chromosomes.
Like orthodox evolutionists, creationist Darwinists reject the notion of the fixity of species. Both orthodox evolutionists and creationist Darwinists believe in the mutability of species. Their primary disagreement is the starting point and time required for one species (or kind) to change to another species (or kind). Another major difference is that orthodox evolutionists believe that life began by some kind of spontaneous generation, while creationist Darwinists believe that life began by some kind of divine creative act.

Breeds of Dogs
Many creationist Darwinists point to the more than 300 breeds of dogs to support their claim that all humans are descendants of Adam and Eve. Most contend that all the species of Canis (the gray wolf, including the domestic dog and dingo, the coyote, African golden wolf, Ethiopian wolf, Eurasian golden jackal, Asiatic wild dog, African wild dog, black back jackal, and side-striped jackal) descended from a common pair of parents. Some claim that all the species of dogs, wolves, foxes, and coyote descended from common ancestors; that is, all the species of the Canidae family have a common pair of initial parents. Thus, these so-called creationists resort to Darwinism to expand the origins of species. God merely created the initial parents from whom these species evolved (developed, as these creationist Darwinists like to say). If true, their assertion that all humans descended from Adam and Eve easily supports that the biological races of men are different species: They evolved (or developed) into different species from common parents.
As for the breed of dogs, they are artificial creations. With perhaps a few exceptions, they do not occur naturally. Breeders have developed them by breeding dogs with traits that they want. Breeders keep the offspring that have the desired traits and cull the rest. They keep breeding the offspring until the offspring breed true with the desired traits. Where is the evidence of such an authoritarian program in the development of the various human species, races, and breeds? If the dog breeder analogy is accurate or has merit, then God would have selected offspring from Adam and Eve and bred them to produce the desired racial traits and would have destroyed those who did not have the desired traits.
If Occam’s razor (“simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones”) is applied, the simplest solution is having God creating the parents of each race. That is, each biological human race is descended from a different pair of parents. Fewer assumptions are involved in this explanation of the species of men than the evolutionism offered by creation Darwinism. Moreover, it is more Biblical.
In the nineteenth century, before political correctness gained control of science, anthropologists and others could discuss the races of men and their hybrids with an honesty and frankness that cannot occur today. Some anthropologists concluded that some human hybrids lack fecundity to survive for more than a few generations, if that long. That is, if the hybrids did not breed with one of the parent stock, they would die out within a few generations. In On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo (edited by C. Carter Blake; London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, Paternoster Row,1864), Dr. Paul Broca summaries some of these studies. He comments (page 61):

Zoologists have, in each of the natural groups which constitute the genera, recognised several types which they denominate species.
The human group evidently constitutes one genus; if it consisted only of one species, it would form a single exception in creation. It is, therefore, but natural to presume, that this genus is, like all the others, composed of different species. In the greater number of genera, the various species differ much less from each other than certain human races. A naturalist, who, without touching the question of origin, purely and simply applies to the human genus the general principles of zootaxis, would be inclined to divide this genus into different species.

Eve: Mother of All Living
In Genesis 3:20, the Bible calls Eve the mother of all living. From this statement, most creationists infer that all species of men are descended from Adam and Eve. (According to the “two seed” theory, only some humans are descended from Adam and Eve; the remainder is descended from Satan and Eve.)
If the passage that Eve is the mother of all living is literally true, and it has to be literally true if all species of men descended from Eve, then evolution (or perhaps devolution) is proven, and Chapter 1 of Genesis is wrong. If Eve is the mother of all living, then all animals, plants, fungi, protozoa, bacteria, and archaea are descended from her. The passage does not limit “all living” to only humans: That is merely an unsupported inference. Thus, evolution is not from a primitive single-cell creature toward the complex human. It is the opposite, i.e., from the complex human to the most primitive single-cell creature, which is more correctly devolution. (Consequently, the theory held by many creationists that life on earth is degrading or devolving is supported.) To avoid this absurdity that all living things descended from Eve and the contradiction of Chapter 1 of Genesis, the most appropriate interpretation of this passage is that all Adamites, Aryans, or Whites are descended from Adam and Eve — and nothing more.

Addendum

The following are additional species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

1. A goat (Capra hircus) bred with a sheep (Ovis aries), an ibex (Capra ibex), or an aoudad (Ammotragus lervia) produces fertile offspring. 

2. A domestic sheep (O. aries) bred with an Asiatic mouflon (O. orientalis), mouflon (O. musimon), or big horn sheep (O. canadensis) produces fertile offspring.

3. A mouflon  (O. musimon) bred with a big horn sheep (O. canadensis) or a urial (O. vignei) produces fertile offspring.

4. Two species of mice, Peromyscus maniculatus and P. polionotus, can produce fertile offspring when mated.

5. Two other species of mice, P. leucopus and P. gossypinus, can also produce fertile offspring when crossed.

6. A llama (Lama glama) bred with an alpaca (L. pacos) produces fertile offspring.

7. Two species of barking deer, Muntiacus reevesi and M. muntjak, can produce fecund offspring.

8.  Two species of chinchillas, Chinchilla brevicaudata and C. laniger, produce fertile offspring when they interbreed. 

9. Guinea pigs, Cavia aperca and C. porcellus, produce fertile offspring.

10. Two species of chimpanzees, Pan satyrus and P. schweinfurthii, can interbreed and produce fecund offspring. 

11. Two species of leaf monkeys, Pithecus chrysomelas and P. cruciger, can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

12. A slate-colored junco (Junco hyemalis) bred with white-winged junco (J. aikeni), Oregon junco (J. oregonus), and gray-headed junco (J. caniceps) produces fertile offspring.

13. A pig (Sus domesticus) can breed with a wild boar (S. scrofa) or banded pig (S. vittatus) and produce fertile offspring.

14. A domestic chicken (Gallus domesticus), red jungle fowl (G. gallus or G. bankiva), Ceylon jungle fowl (G. lafayette), gray jungle fowl (G. sonnerati), and Javan jungle fowl (G. varius) can all interbreed with each other and produce fertile offspring. 

Copyright © 2019, 2025, by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.