HELEN This past weekend "The Monkey Trial" was shown on television. There is a review of it here which adds a little more information to the Scopes trial and what it involved: http://www.nationalreview.com/weekend/television/television-wiker021602.shtml One of the arguments used by evolutionists is that Darwin was simply going along with the culture of his day regarding racism. He may well have been. But what about a biology text -- the one, in fact, at the center of the controversy in the Scopes trial? Here from the above website: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is an overlooked source of darkness at the trial that is well worth bringing into the light, the very high-school biology textbook at issue in the trial, George William Hunter's A Civic Biology. Few have even heard of it. Even fewer have read it. I happen to run across a copy, of all places, at a local thrift store. Simply put, the textbook which John Scopes was using was offensively racist and blatantly eugenic, and the racism and eugenics were both part and parcel of Hunter's presentation of Darwin's theory of evolution. Hunter ranked the races according to how high each had reached on the evolutionary scale. There are "five races or varieties of man…the Ethiopian or Negro type…the Malay or brown race…the American Indian…the Mongolian or yellow race…and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America." [emphasis added] By implication, we can surmise who, for Hunter, was on the bottom. Well, now. I don't remember that in the movie. Nor have we been made aware of Hunter's eugenic ruminations. "If the stock of domesticated animals can be improved, it is not unfair to ask if the health and vigor of the future generations of men and women on the earth might not be improved by applying to them the laws of selection." For Hunter, not only genetic predispositions for diseases such as tuberculosis and epilepsy are handed on by careless human breeding, but also "feeble-mindedness" and "immorality." Since it would be "not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity," weeding out the unfit is part of good human husbandry. "The science of being well born is called eugenics. ... Hunter then declared that "If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race." All this from the most famous, but unread book, the book John Scopes used to teach biology, Hunter's A Civic Biology. This is what Scopes was teaching his students down at Dayton. So much for the forces of reason and light. Now it might be objected that Hunter (and perhaps Scopes himself) deviated from true evolution into pseudo-scientific racism and eugenic rambling, and in doing so, ceased to be scientific. That may be true, but he did not cease to be an evolutionist in full accord with his master, Charles Darwin himself." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In other words, until political correctness came into power, racial distinctions, and thus racisim itself, was considered part and parcel of evolution. This is not to say that evolution is responsible for racism. It was and is not. Please don't mistake me. I know as well as anyone that racism has its roots in earliest known humanity, whether one be creationist or evolutionist. However the fact of the matter is that the Bible tears down racism in both Old and New Testaments (presenting faithfulness to God as the actual distinguishing characteristic among men), while evolutionism actively supported it and was understood to support it by its followers, including the writers of biology texts.